Q&A: Chabad
Chabad
Question
Good morning, Rabbi Michi,
Because over the last few months I’ve started seriously listening to your lessons on YouTube, and because I’m from the Chabad community, over the past few days I looked to see whether you had ever written about Chabad.
What I found were a number of questions about Chabad that had been asked. What you wrote in general is that you have appreciation for many of the things Chabad does, and they have much merit to their credit. At the same time, you wrote, you have a problem with the madness of the “messianist” faction in Chabad that claims the Rebbe is still alive, and especially you have a problem with the fact that in Chabad people pray to the Rebbe (I think you also added in one place that there are additions in Chabad prayer directed toward praying to the Rebbe), which is outright idolatry. You added that you are concerned about joining a prayer quorum with Chabad people because of possible idolatry, and therefore you prefer praying alone rather than with a quorum of Chabad followers.
Precisely because I’m really starting to appreciate you, I wanted to write to you about this. Also, I’m not writing these things on your site, because from the nature of the responses I found on questions that were already asked, I understand that what I say will once again provoke ugly reactions full of unnecessary lies (my feeling is that there is some kind of “cult” around you whose pride lies in blunt contempt for anything that seems to them irrational, without any substantive examination). I wanted to write to you in order to draw your attention to this in a substantive way.
I was born to Chabad parents, grew up and studied my whole life in Chabad institutions (and taught a little as well), and most of my family is Chabad, including uncles and aunts.
As for the messianists who claim the Rebbe is alive—I agree that this is indeed foolish stupidity, but I think it is not a matter of Jewish law, as you also wrote (by the way, most of the messianists I know “come down” from this issue as they mature, and are left only with the matter of publicizing the Rebbe’s name as Messiah).
As for the issue of praying to the Rebbe—I didn’t know how to react when I read your words. I have no other way to define it, but it is simply an incorrect claim in every possible way, with no hold on reality whatsoever. I have no idea where you drew this “knowledge” from, because it is completely false. As I said, I grew up in Chabad from birth, and I have never heard of such a thing in my life.
I know of one addition in Grace after Meals, which some added and some still add regarding the Rebbe, and it is in the blessing “Who is good and does good,” among the other “May the Merciful One” passages: “May the Merciful One bless our master, our teacher, and our rabbi,” and some also add “…the King Messiah.” But in this addition it is obvious that there is no prayer to the Rebbe, but rather a prayer to the Holy One, blessed be He, to bless the Rebbe.
I do remember that in the past there were a very small number of people—not even enough to make a group—who called themselves “Elokists” and claimed that the Rebbe is God. But they really were idolaters; it was literally just a handful of individuals, and they were considered so bizarre and foolish that there was not even any need to fight them. In any case, as far as Chabad is concerned, they were never considered Chabad within Chabad. I haven’t heard about them for years, and I never encountered them personally.
But then I read among your other remarks on the subject that you are unsure whether to believe what any given Chabad person tells you because you fear it may be nothing but apologetics. Of course, if you decide to read my words and dismiss them as lies and an attempt to present things differently from the true reality, there is nothing I can do.
As one additional small remark, I’ll write that a large part of the foundations you taught in your lessons on faith / belief on YouTube appear explicitly and in detail in Chabad teaching in general, and in the talks and discourses of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in particular. Sometimes this is specifically in passages where in your lessons you accuse Hasidism and the Hasidim of holding differently from what you say (for example, the “first level” in commandment observance—that one fulfills God’s commands because they are God’s commands and for no further reason, not even love of God).
I hope you’ll read what I’ve written with an open heart and willing spirit, just as I wrote these things.
Sabbath peace,
Answer
Many thanks for your words.
Let me begin by saying that I truly and sincerely read what you wrote with openness, and I hope you will do the same with what I write.
Quite a few people have written me things along these lines, and I also have connections with Chabad people whom I value very highly. In general, I have a great appreciation for Chabad in certain respects (not only for their contribution to the broader public), and certainly for the Rebbe, who was a very wise man and very devoted to the Jewish people. On the other hand, my impression is that many Chabad people engage quite a bit in apologetics. Consider, for example, how Chabad is perceived today by the public regarding its attitude toward Zionism. Who is aware that it is almost the most anti-Zionist group there is in terms of its theology? (This appears in the Rebbe’s approbation to the new edition of If the Children Are Joyful.) Who is aware that they are really not open to other groups, but very closed off? All of this is completely legitimate, but the outward presentation conceals all of it. It’s no wonder that all this looks like a defensive cult, and therefore my trust in the claims of various explainers is rather limited. By contrast, private individuals who write to me—like you, for example—arouse more trust in me. I definitely listen to what they say and try to understand whether and where I was mistaken. I’m also fairly sure that they truly express what they themselves believe. But I’ll say in advance that in my opinion they usually see the picture too rosily (because of their biases: their love and appreciation for Chabad, and their habituation to an atmosphere that doesn’t allow them to notice the oddness and the flaws in it). The interpretation they give to phenomena, precisely because of the sympathy and familiarity, is in my opinion sometimes biased.
I have no doubt that you know Chabad much better than I do. But I myself encounter very problematic Chabad phenomena (and not only by hearsay). I have Chabad relatives. It may be that this is mainly among the masses and not among the Torah scholars (in my opinion that’s not true), but in my view the phenomenon of reverence for the Rebbe is not as marginal as you describe. The line between reverence and worship is very thin, and quite a few cross it. But I think that everywhere I write that I do not think this is actual idolatry; rather, it is more an uncomfortable feeling of mine, and therefore I’m content to pray alone rather than with a Chabad quorum. Their additions in prayer, strange cries about the Rebbe, endless and disgusting preaching everywhere without considering anyone else or the fact that there are other ways of thinking, along with the odd customs (spitting on the floor, etc.), the bizarre beliefs, the obsession with grandeur, the unwillingness to understand that they are one stream among many (and not “the leaders of our generation” and other similarly foolish expressions)—all this again and again arouses in me a strong sense of a cult. I’ll say again: this is mainly a statement reflecting a feeling, not a diagnosis, and certainly not the result of some statistical study that I did not conduct. But the concept of a cult is elusive and very hard to define.
I recall that Chabad’s emissary, Rabbi Cohen of blessed memory, was with us in Yeruham and I hosted him. He gave a lesson in the study hall (which I quote quite often: the example of the blind man and the sighted man), and at the end he squirmed quite a bit when they asked him about the statement that the Rebbe is still alive. His excuses had a strong apologetic smell to them (“the righteous even in death are called alive,” and the like). I didn’t buy that this was really what was meant, and there was no willingness there to admit that not a few think otherwise (this was not long after the Rebbe died, when I assume these phenomena were more acute than they are today). So my sense is that almost all of them are messianists in certain senses. Sometimes this is wrapped in excuses and ambiguous statements of one sort or another (you understand that one could also justify the Christian Trinity in such ways: it’s a metaphor, etc.). But the overall impression this leaves me with is difficult.
Add to this the behavior of a cult: they eat only what is kosher according to their own view, use a ritual bath only according to their own view, educate only in their own institutions, and do not mix with anyone else (contrary to the image of openness—the mixing always takes place on their turf and under their control and in their way).
Obviously, an individual person deserves to be judged favorably, and in every group there are better and worse people, and wiser and less wise ones. And I try not to judge any person by his affiliation. What I’m saying here concerns Chabad as a group, not the individual Chabad person, who may be a wise and excellent individual—and there are very many such people whom I personally know.
As for your point that elements of my outlook appear in Chabad writings, people have told me the same thing more than once about Rabbi Tzadok, Rabbi Kook, the Maharal, Rabbi Nachman, Chabad, etc. That needs extensive discussion, and this is not the place. I’ll only say that I fully accept it, but you could say that about any idea. The history of ideas is a deceptive matter, because no one invents anything ex nihilo. Still, a doctrine and an idea belong to the one who formulated and articulated them clearly and conceptually, and made them and their implications available for public use. But as I said, I completely accept that such and such foundations are found there (as they are in all the other writings I mentioned). It mainly depends on the scope of the literature. If it is broad and eclectic enough, you can find everything in it.
Again, thank you for your words, and I hope you’ll take what I write in a substantive way. I value Chabad greatly, and every person according to his worth, but I tried to write honestly and candidly about my feelings and the reasons for them. I assume I won’t persuade you to change your feelings, and I don’t see any need for that either. But I do want to clarify why I say and write these things, which to you apparently seem like mistakes and unfamiliarity.
All the best and Sabbath peace,
Discussion on Answer
Greetings.
I’ll respond briefly only to a few points that are new here.
A. Regarding ostracism and the attitude toward people with other views. I’m glad to hear that this is the situation, but that is far from being a necessary condition for a cult. The concept of a cult is rather vague and has many characteristics (I discussed this in Column 19 regarding Har Hamor. I think they also do not ostracize).
B. All this talk and wordplay about the leader of the generation—these are precisely cult-like discussions, with all due respect. Vague rhetoric trying to dance at two weddings. When cults encounter facts that refute their beliefs, they begin with excuses and vague talk, because from their point of view it can never be that they were mistaken. That is exactly cultishness.
C. The fact that certain things have sources in the Rebbe’s writings or in Chabad writings in general changes absolutely nothing for me. The fact that the problem begins with him does not solve it; it deepens it.
You remind me of a story I heard from Rabbi Shach’s son (Dr. Ephraim Shach), who was with the Rebbe at the dollar distribution. The Rebbe heard who he was and asked him that when he got to the Land of Israel, he should tell his father: “It’s not me, it’s my Hasidim.” Ephraim said that when he arrived to his father and relayed what the Rebbe had said, Rabbi Shach replied: next time he should say that to his Hasidim and not to me. Enough said.
D. Even if there is some element of what I say in Chabad doctrine, that does not necessarily contradict my criticism of them, because we are dealing with a large body of writings, and it is entirely possible that there are many contradictions and/or disputes within it (as in any large corpus of writings).
Have a good week,
A humorous video about the Chabad Rebbe from The Jews Are Coming, very similar to the story the Rabbi always tells about Rabbi Shach’s son.
Indeed, some of that comes from me.
Regarding the matter of the Rebbe’s life, the source of this is in Tanya, Iggeret HaKodesh, section 27, where it is written that after the passing of the righteous person, his influence on his students is much greater than during his lifetime (based on the talk of the 10th of Shevat 5726, this can be explained quite logically as referring specifically to Chabad Hasidim), meaning that although during his life the influence was tangible and revealed, the influence after his passing surpasses that. (You can also say that the problem began with the author of the Tanya, or if you want, with the Baal Shem Tov.)
Regarding prayers and formulations, if I am not mistaken, in Maimonides’ lifetime they would add a special formulation in Kaddish for the merit of Maimonides (this requires verification).
And yes, in general, many things in Chabad are hard to understand correctly if you are not on the inside. Chabad teaching thinks in a different and opposite way from everything in this world; even things that appear to others to be mistaken—after studying Chabad teaching, it becomes clear why there is no heresy there. And to say that someone who cannot explain this properly should not be a Chabad Hasid is like saying that a Jew who does not know how to prove that Judaism is the one true religion should not practice its customs at all.
Regarding the story with Shach, we have neither heard nor seen documentation of this visit; if it had happened, it should have become better known. Usually people believe the injured side less.
In general, this whole struggle with Shach was not personal but ideological. Look at the Rebbe’s talks: he speaks with pain about the very fact that a Jew could say things that have no place according to the Torah of truth, and it is always also explained why.
With all due respect, Sabbath peace
Thank you for the long reply. I appreciate it.
I definitely read your words calmly and with a settled mind, and I can understand some of what you’re saying.
I absolutely agree with you that there’s a problem with “explainers.” Although that’s a general problem with any official “spokesperson.”
Still, with your permission I’d like to comment on a few of the points you raised:
Regarding Zionism—in fact it is convenient for Chabad to remain vague on this issue for several reasons. But on the other hand, one must also remember that Chabad’s theological position on this is not black and white, so if Chabad were to try to explain it to the public, the public would get a very mistaken impression that would distort the truth. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s opinion is that the IDF is not connected to Zionism (and apparently this would also apply to all the security organizations, though perhaps one could discuss the police, which is responsible for enforcing the law), just as the “guard” organizations in Jewish communities in the U.S. are not connected to Zionism. Likewise, he explicitly encouraged the expansion of existing settlements and the establishment of new settlements in the Land of Israel. His opinion on control of the “territories” is well known. He encouraged Jews to immigrate to the Land of Israel, and more and more. True, on the other side there is opposition to the ideology of Zionism. But as I said, this is a definition that would be hard to explain to the public without smearing Chabad and distorting the truth, unlike Satmar. Although, as I wrote, I agree that there is also convenience in the ambiguity.
Regarding reverence for the Rebbe—I am not claiming that reverence for the Rebbe is marginal. It is widespread, very much so. What I am claiming is that this “reverence” does not come close to idolatry (perhaps I misunderstand your definition of “reverence”). Included in this—Chabad people do not pray to the Rebbe. In Chabad they do believe that the divine flow that descends into the world passes through the leader of the generation, who is the Rebbe (similar to the belief in other Hasidic streams, perhaps in a more defined form). The analogy used for this is the life-force of the soul that passes through the brain to the rest of the limbs (I’m not getting into whether the analogy works scientifically, only the point), as brought in the Tanya, chapter 2. But after all that, they do not attribute to the Rebbe powers that are attributed to the Holy One, blessed be He.
Again you mention that Chabad has additions in prayer. I don’t understand which addition you mean. The daily Psalms portion recited after prayer? The daily Tanya portion studied before prayer? I truly didn’t understand. As for “strange cries about the Rebbe,” I assume you mean the proclamation “Long live our master” etc.—many in Chabad see this proclamation as madness (although before the Rebbe’s passing, most would sometimes proclaim this, but that was during his lifetime, and the situation there is somewhat different).
As for “odd customs,” citing as an example the custom of spitting during “Aleinu,” this custom actually has an old source and is mentioned in Turei Zahav, Yoreh De’ah 179:5 and elsewhere.
As for your feeling that Chabad is some kind of cult—from my own reflection, it seems to me that the thing that most characterizes cults is the inability to oppose the cult spirit from within the cult, and the total trampling of opponents of the cult. This does not exist in Chabad. I’m not speaking only about someone who stops observing commandments and is not pushed out of the synagogue, study hall, and educational institutions. I’m also talking about someone who disagrees with the Rebbe on some point: if he does so in a non-provocative way, he will not be expelled from Chabad and not be ostracized. I write this from personal familiarity with such people (though they are few in number).
Another thing that’s important to me to address is the familiar squirming of every Chabad person when he is asked about the Rebbe’s life today. I’ll tell you the truth. All those who do not belong to the “messianist” stream know perfectly well that the Rebbe passed away. As I said in my previous email, a large portion of the “messianist” stream also admit this once they mature (though they will not always say it explicitly); rather, they mainly continue to claim that there is value in publicizing the Rebbe as Messiah. The issue is something else. The assumption in Chabad is that the Rebbe continues to be the “leader of the generation” even after his death, including the idea that the divine light passes through him (as above), etc. This line of thought has firm foundations in the Rebbe’s own words about his father-in-law, the Previous Rebbe. The Rebbe publicly regarded his father-in-law as the “leader of the generation” for decades after he died. The Hasidim at that very time regarded the Rebbe himself as the “leader of the generation” and not his father-in-law, and took the Rebbe’s words as a kind of humility and a way of saying that the Rebbe is really the continuation of his father-in-law’s path and not something separate.
After the Rebbe’s death, these claims returned with even greater force concerning the Rebbe himself. But then the matter became difficult: if the Rebbe died, in what way is he different from his father-in-law who died and from then on was no longer the “leader of the generation,” but rather his son-in-law was? Likewise, if you say that a leader of the generation who has died can remain the “leader of the generation” even after death, then why is the Rebbe the leader of the generation and not Moses our teacher himself? From here came precisely the thought (which also has foundations in the Rebbe’s words about his father-in-law) that although the Rebbe did indeed die, his soul is present with his flock exactly as in his lifetime, unlike other righteous figures whose souls do not live with their flock after death as they did in life. It is a kind of theological synthesis between “alive” and “dead” that solves the issue of the Rebbe being the “leader of the generation” even today.
And this is exactly where the squirming comes from. Because there still is no clearly defined Chabad formulation for this state, and the moment a Chabad person (not a “messianist”) says that the Rebbe “died,” it doesn’t go down his throat well—not because he thinks the Rebbe is alive, but because “died” means that he is no longer the leader of the generation. And therefore there will always be emphasis on “alive with us spiritually” and the like.
Another solution that became more entrenched later is to say that insofar as there is another leader of the generation, the “leadership” passes to him, and if there is none, the “leadership” remains with the last one in the chain. Since in Chabad it is accepted that the “leader of the generation” must also be the leader of Chabad, there you have it—there is no replacement, and therefore the Rebbe is the “leader of the generation” until the righteous redeemer comes (which many in Chabad would say is the Rebbe himself. By the way, that too has intellectual sources in the foundations of Chabad, but this is not the place to elaborate).
The last detail I wanted to address is what you wrote about what I wrote—that there are elements in your outlook that have been well known in Chabad for many years. I completely agree with what you wrote. But what I meant was not that I have a problem with your not mentioning Chabad as the source for your ideas, nor that your ideas are copied, etc., because you are absolutely right that there is the person who formulates and builds a method out of it, etc. What I meant is that in several lessons it grated on me to hear from you principles in the service of God on which I was raised precisely in Chabad, to hear from you that this is in your opinion the truth, and then to hear that you think the fault of the Hasidim and Hasidism is that they have errors and people flock after those errors (as an example I mentioned the issue of the “first level” in the service of God, as above in my previous email).
As stated, I thank you for the response, and in general for your great work, and for the time you devote to answering people of all kinds.
With many blessings,