Talk:Chabad/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Four points

(A) Rabbi David Berger literally quotes Lubavitch Hasids who believe that their Rebbe is God incarnate. There should be no dispute about this. While most people with this view have become secrative about such beliefs, some are so enthusiastic that they have written about this quite clearly. Berger's only "crime" is that he published these quotes in English, which seem to have embarassed many people.

(B) TruthAboutChabad is denying that any Chabad exist who worship Rabbi Schneerson as God. Sadly, he is mistaken. Berger and others have proved that this claim is false.

(C) However, I agree with TruthAboutChabad (TaB) in that most Lubavitch do not feel this way. They believe that they are not claiming that the Rebbe is God, and they have developed a detailed apologetic literature to support their beliefs. I agree with TaB that this viewpoint can and should be discussed in an NPOV fashion. (i.e. "According to most Chabad Hasidim, this belief is acceptable because..."

(D) A more problematic issue is that while of Chabad believes that Rabbi Schneerson was God in the way that TruthAboutChabad writes, this way is understood by most other Jews to be avodah zarah, and seems to be identical to how Christians view Jesus. They are trying to have it both ways. They want to say that "The Rebbe isn't God, of course not!", yet they also teach that God's essence was literaly in the human form of R. Schneerson, in a special way, and that the words of the Rebbe might as well be the words of God Himself. They believe that this is acceptable within Jewish theolgy. However, the many critics of Chabad believe that this group, however sincere, has deluded itself. While they try to say that this isn't worshipping the Rebbe as God incanate, it actually is! According to this criticism, many Chabad Hasidim are suffering from cognitive dissonance; they are trying to hold two contradictory viewpoints simultaneously. They do not believe that they are doing this, but they are doing so nonetheless. Most of the Orthodox criticism on this point is oral, but Rabbi Berger brings forth some written sources. This article includes one such criticism from an orthodox source, and two criticisms from conservative sources. I believe that these criticisms are written in NPOV fashion. RK 17:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Berger, Jayjg is looking up Berger's book, to see what types of sources Berger brings, furthermore one must also reliaze that those sources (if they exist)may only be statements from people similiar to statements that the Rebbe used, which is clearly not that he is G-d, as previously explained. Truthaboutchabad

Is it possible that you still do not understand NPOV,or the views of any other Jewish people? First off, some Chabad Hasidis do believe that R. Schneerson is God, end of story. Your denial of this means that you are either ignorant of this specific topic, or you are just being stubborn. Secondly, I understand that you personally truly believe that you do not believe that the Rebbe is God. Ok. B ut other scholars of Chabad Judaism say that you are fooling yourself. They look at the same views you mention, and they say "This is clearly worshipping Schneerson as God." So in order to satisfy Wikipedia NPOV policy, we explain the beliefs of your group, and state who holds that view. Then we explain the view of other groups, and state who holds that view. You cannot bring forth "proofs" to exclude points of view that you disagree with. RK 14:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to point C and D, It isn't just Lubavitchers that feel this way, rather that is what all Chassidim believe in, and if you see the document Atzmus that I posted you will see even a similiar statement from the Bach and the Rama. This is clearly not like the way that Christians view Jesus, because they view Jesus as G-d himself, as opposed to Jews who consider holy people to be nulified before G-d, so much so that they have no other thought or opinion rather than what G-d wants, thereby making their soul which is part of G-d (not a chabad invention, rather I'm sure everyone agrees that a Jew has a soul which is part of G-d) more revealed. Truthaboutchabad

Now you are writing totally false statements. All other Chasidim 'do not believe that their rebbe is God enclothed in Human form. See the specific controversial quotes in this article made by Rabbi Schneerson about this point. The idea that other Chasidim agree with his rather new belief is wrong in every way, and many other Chasidim have criticised him for uttering such teachings. This is precisely the point at which other Orthodox Jews differ from Chabad, and this is why many now accuse of Chabad of becoming a neo-Christian faith. You must stop repeating false statements; repetition of an error will not make it true. RK 15:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is when people who are unaware of concepts discussed in Chassidus and Kabbalah, (Rabbi Keller and the two conservative rabbis) they misunderstand and because of no fault of their own, they think that chabad is doing the wrong thing. However their misunderstanding of Kabbalistic concepts shouldn't be a reason for a posting of their views in Wikipedia.

Perhaps Berger or others have found a Lubavitcher Chossid as well that has sadly misunderstood these concepts, however that person (if he exists) doesn't representt chabad at all. (In general these concepts aren't discussed at all because of the ease at which it could be misundersttod, however once it is already widely spoken abnout here, it is best thatan explanation be given as well.) I'm sure there are many Jews that have views about what G-d is, that is contrary to what Judaism believes in, however those Jews don't represent Judaism, they are Jewish however their views aren't. Therefore obviously there views aren't part of the wikipedia article about Jews. Perhaps a statement like "Berger believes that a few lubavitchers have misinterpeted the Rebbe's teachings in a way which isn't in accordance with Jewish law" would be more appropiate, instead of half the article wasted on quoting conservative rabbis (who may be nice people, but that is now what this article is about) who misunderstood or aren't aware of some Jewish concepts. --Truthaboutchabad 02:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RK already provided us with Berger's sources: people he's interviewed himself. Jayjg or RK, does he also quote any Chabad publications? T@lk

Yes, Prof. Berger repeatedly quotes dozens of Chabad publications and statements, all very well references. Does TruthAboutChabad believe that all these Chabad Hasids are lying? Or perhaps he believes that all Chabad Hasidim who differ from him no longer are not really Chabad Hasidim? If so, then TruthAboutChabad is using the No_true_Scotsman logical fallacy. RK 14:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot claim that Rabbi Keller (or the others for that matter) does not understand Chassidus. This is an inditction you can always make to defend yourself ("Oh, yeah, but they're misunderstanding everything"). If there is clear proof that some pray to the Rebbe and consider him G'd incarnate, then you have no right to suppress this, even if you and many of your fellows would disagree with this notion. Why can you not accept this? Please review WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia is not in the business of being a PR showcase. Its articles on Scientology, lehavdil, are much more hostile than this article is about Chabad. Still, if something is clearly true, why should we suppress facts? JFW | T@lk 08:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let us deal with the first part of the contervosy section where it speaks about the relationship between G-d the rebbe and his followers. I have proved above that it isn't only chabad that believes what it does, rather it is all Chassidim and many non-chassidim, (includinga Gemera Yerushalmi, and the Bach and Rama). Therefore the first section of the contervosy is between the above mentioned sources and others, which this dispute doesn't belong in the chabad page. The only reason why some think that it should be in the chabad page is because of a few people that say that the Rebbe is G-d which this is clearly not the intent of the Rebbe as discussed above and clearly not what chabad chassidim think (you can ask any chabad chossid, and he will tell you the same). Therefore when it discusses in the second section about these people who believe that the Rebbe is G-d, that should suffice. --Truthaboutchabad 22:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rather than bringing more evidence of how Lubavitch interprets these writings, why not bring evidence that some other Hassidic group believes the same thing? That would be more to the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that I have done that with the document posted above Media:Atzmus.pdf, in addition you have a full book called Al Hatzadikim by Pavezener which lists all the places that these terms are used by Hassidim and non-hassidim. --Truthaboutchabad 23:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which Hassidic groups today say that; please bring their writings. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once their earliar Rebayim have said it, there is no reason to think that that have changed their outlook, because the way Chassdim hold their Rebbe is that he is a continuation and built upon the previous Rebayim of theirs, So unless we find a reason that they stopped believing this, we must assume that they still believe this. Furthermore, as mentioned previously it isn't just Chassidim that believe this, in fact there is a Gemara Yershalmi, Bach Rema, Mesilas Yesharim, a quote from R' Chaim M'Veloszhin in Nefesh Hachaim, R' Dressler who was the Mashgiach in Ponivitch, and the Rabeinu Bachai, among many other nonchassidim that say similiar statements, as shown in the document posted (and to keep in mind the Rebbe only said that statement once in 1951)--Truthaboutchabad 00:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TruthAboutChabad, if what you say is true then why do the other Orthodox Hasidic groups effectively deny that they believe this? This questions needs to be answered. Many Hasidic Jews hold that Chabad is preaching what they see as heresy, on this specific point. You can't cogently argue "But all the Hasidim agrees with me" in a situation where the Hasidic community is disagreeing with you. An analogy: If a Reform Jewish contributor wrote "Most Conservative and Orthodox Jews agree that Reform's view of Halakha is valid", we could logically rebut this claim by asking "Then why do most Orthodox and Conservative Jews say that they do not have this belief about the Reform?" RK

But has anyone ever made a survey asking what Jews of various denominations believe? Until we do, I'd refrain from making statements saying "most" Orthodox and Conservative Jews or Reform Jews feel a certain way. Truthaboutreform

It seems that you are reading Chabad beliefs, and non-Chabad beliefs, and then satisfying yourself that they are the same. Whether or not your analysis should be true, we need to point out that other Orthodox Jews do not agree with your analysis. RK 00:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the arguments from User:Truthaboutchabad as well as the ones from User:RK, User_talk:Jayjg and User:Jfdwolff. I have also reviewed some of the revision history of the Chabad Lubavitch article. I am certainly not the greatest expert in this field (although I am not completely ignorant either), but it seems to me that especially "Truthaboutchabad" needs to be able to quote independent sources to increase his chances of being believed. Part of this is the username, which seems to signal a strong POV (one may, justly or unjustly, suspect too close a personal association with the topic in question for a reasonably objective agenda). It is not enough to say that you have support in the Yerushalmi — to be able to convince, you have to show where in the Yerushalmi, what the Yerushalmi says, and how your view is supported by at least one source which is truly independent of the Chabad movement. And the latter will have to be quoted for you to be able to convince. I have no personal interest for or against the Chabad. Show me the best case, and I will be convinced. For the time being, I do not feel convinced. -- Olve 02:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Similar Hasidic teachings about tzadiks

The exact sources with full quotes are posted in the document Media:Atzmus.pdf. The document is in Hebrew, and I won't transalate the entire 3 page document here, however here is a sampling of the quotes from non-chabad and chassidic and non-Chassidic sourses

When Reb Dovid’l of Tulneh ZT”L was asked by him Chassidim “What is a Tzaddik, and what is a Chassid?” He answered: “A Tzaddik iz a faideh Gut (“A Tzaddik is the essence of G-d”), un a Chassid? Zai vestu visen”.

In Darkei Chaim V’sholom from the Minchas Ela’zar (in minhogim to taanis tzibur) he writes that he heard from the “Shem Shlomo” that said about the greatness of the neshamah of R. Mendel of Rimanov, that Hashem took the four letters of his name, so to speak, and wrapped them with a “zupitze” and a “spudik”, and that became R. Mendel of Rimanov.

And there’s a famous saying in the name of R. Ahron of Chernobyl that “Elokus is the Tzaddik, and the Tzaddik is Elokus, when you travel to a Tzaddik you go with one Machshavah, not with two.”

Even R. Eliyahu Dessler zt”l wrote “ki tzuras hatzaddikim hu Hashem yisbarech, v’heinu hach” (brought down in “marbitzei torah u’musar beginning of vol. 3 page 10).

And see the Bach to the Tur on Oirach Chaim Siman 47, "The purpose of this world is that one should be involved in Torah Study, So our souls should be connected in its essence with the spirituality and holiness of the giver of the Torah...And if one is learning Torah with this intention They are a Markavah (chariot [meaning completely nulified, and like one]) to the Shechina may he be blessed. That the Shechinah is actually within them because they are the room of G-d and in them in actuality is the Shechina establishing its dwelling place.

and see what the Ramchal wrote in Mesilas Yesharim chapter 26, "One that is holy and constantaly cleaves constantly to G-d, and his soul is fired up with a true understanding, with love for his creator and fear...A person like this is himself considered to me a Mishkan, and like a temple, and Mizbeiach...Therefore it is said that Tzadikim are a Markava, because the Shechina dwells upon them like it used to dwell in the holy temple.--Truthaboutchabad 08:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rooster613 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)(Making onesself a dwelling place for the Shechinah is not the same thing as what I understand some Lubovitchers to believe about the Rebbe being God incarnate. A Merkavah is a chariot, a vehicle or container (keli) for the attribute of godliness, in the same way that the Mishkan was a "dwelling place" for the Shekhinah. To make oneself a dwelling place for the Shekhinah does not mean that one becomes God incarnate, heaven forbid. The Mishkan did not become God, but it did become holy. user:Rooster613

Sigh. Please quote the writings of a modern, extant non-Lubavitch Hassidic group proposing this understanding. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why should the writings be from a modern and extant group? What's the logic here? Truthaboutreform 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TruthAboutChabad (TaB), I think that you do have some very good points here. Some of this data should go into our article on this topic, and on an articles we have on the doctrine of the tzaddik in Hasidic Judaism. (B) TaB is correct when he says that some Hasidic Jews have used this terminology in regards to their rebbes. (Almost never someone else's rebbe, of course!) As such, this should be mentioned; Chabad beliefs on this topic did not appear in a vacuum. (C) We do not need to demand that he use current sources; Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago). TaB is thus correct to use some of the above quotes as a valid source. (D) However, my disagreement with TaB here is on two essential points: RK

(1) Although these statements about Rebbes and Tazddiks being the essence of God do exist in parts of Hasidic literature, what is much more important is how these statements are understood, and how they are taught. That is a point which TaB is missing, and which JayJG, JFW, myself and others are concerned with.

(2) Many Chabad Jews probably do follow an understanding of this teaching which is compatible with the rest of Hasidic Judaism. For such Chabad Jews, criticism of them as being non-traditional (in a Hasidic sense) may be mistaken. However, many (some say most) Chabad Jews do not understand this doctrine as other Hasidic Jews do. Rather, they have their own interpretation of this teaching which does contradict the views of other Hasidic Jews. It is this latter point that others are stressing, and that TaB is not addressing. RK 18:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

(3) The fact that one can go from a (not "the") traditional Hasidic view of the Tzadik as the essence of God to the Chabad version of this belief is one of the big reasons why many mitnagdim ("opponents" of Hasidic Judaism) totally disagreed with Hasidic Judaism to beginw ith. From the very beginning, some aspects of Hasidic theology were denounced by some Orthodox Jews as leaning towards gnosticism, or as leaning towards quasi-Christianity. See for instance the discussion of Gershom Scholem in his books and articles on Kabbalah and Hasidic Judaism. RK 18:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

In regard to point 1, all these statements from chabad and others are almost never mentioned or taught, because of the complexity of the ideas involved. (The statement of the Rebbe was in 1951, right after the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe passed away and he was explaining what a Rebbe is. However since then no other statements like that were made, probably because of the complexity of the ideas involved.) Because they aren't discussed much we don't find modern sources besides some chabad sources which were written in response to attacks on chabad (which being more visible than other Chasidic movements was more carefully scrutinized) Other Chassidim never needed to write anything to explain these statements of their teachers, because they were never attacked. However I find no reason to believe that Jews outside chabad would interpret it differently than chabad at all, being that chabad interprets it in a non literal way that the rebbe isn’t G-d as explained many times above, so I really doubt that others would explain differently.

In regards to points 2 and 3, If you are speaking about those that may believe that the Rebbe is G-d, then as we already discussed that anyone that believes that is condemned from within chabad and it’s not an accepted belief. (In regards to including it in this article, as previously discussed it would be best to mention it in that way as well under the second subject, as discussed above) And if you are speaking about the general chabad view on this, I don’t see how it is incompatible with other Chassidic beliefs or Jewish beliefs being that they use the same terminology without any explanations at all.--Truthaboutchabad 03:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, some members and/or excommunicatees might still consider the Rebbe to be G-d, even though it's not the belief of Chabad itself. Reform Judaism would discourage any such opinion itself (which is a reason - not the only reason - why we're not Christian, btw). Truthaboutreform 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See as well the wikipedia article on soul and the level of Yechidah.--Truthaboutchabad 03:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal of parargraph of Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

This subject of the chabad viewpoint and other Jewish viewpoint regarding this matter has been the subject of alot of discuusion on this talk page.

It has been proven that historically we find the same concepts and statements made by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, by other Chasidic leaders and non Chasidic sources as well. Furthermore, to quote RK, "Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago)." Furthermore we find no reason to say that these viewpoints were changed or understood differently than the way chabad understands the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Therefore if there is a controversy it is only between all the above mentioned chasidic and non chasidic sources and others of which there is no reason to believe that they exist or between some people on some online message boards. Therefore if the is a controversy it isn't between chabad and others rather it is between chabad and others against I don't know who, which this controversy doesn't belong on the chabad page.

Regarding claims that there is a fraction of a percent of chabad that takes these statements literally and that they believe that the Rebbe is G-d, this is already covered under the next section of the contervosy section.

Therefore I propose removing the paragraph discussing "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" since it doesn't belong there and the part that may belong there is already discussed in the next section of the controversy.--PinchasC 02:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we leave it, since you have provided no non-Lubavitch sources that dispute it, only Lubavitch sources interpreting older sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have provided MANY non-lubavitch sources saying the same words of chabad and some even stonger than chabad, and no evidence has been provided that they believe this in a lesser fashion than chabad, and perhaps they even meant it in a stronger way.--PinchasC 00:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have provided a number of writers from cenuturies ago as interpreted by Lubavitch; you have provided nothing showing how modern Hassidim understand these concepts. There is a huge difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and JayJG makes a key point. No one now disputes that many Hasidim have made similar statements. But Hasidic theology is not based on single sentences! How do they understamd these claims? How do such claims function within their theology? These are crucial to understanding this issue. PinchasC, you are pointing out that Chabad Hasidim and non-Chabad Hasidim use similar (and sometimes the same) statements in constructing their theology. But Jews and Christian also use some of the same sources...but they interpret them in very different ways. RK

Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago). and no evidence has been provided that they believe this in a lesser fashion than chabad, and perhaps they even meant it in a stonger way--PinchasC 00:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep making suppositions and claims; instead bring modern evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence doesn't need to be modern to lead to a NPOV. Come on already. Truthaboutreform 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What part of

Jewish theology of today is based on Jewish theology of past generations; this is especially true of Hasidim, who base their theology not just on the Mishna (1,800 years old) but on the writings of Hasidic masters (250 - 100 years ago).

dont you understand?--PinchasC 00:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand it all. But your saying it doesn't make it true. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but it doesn't prove PinchasC's point. RK

First of all I'm quoting RK, who said it above, so you have me and RK saying it, second of all, that is what Judaism is about, you have a Mishna, and the Mishna doesn't get disregarded, you have a BACH and a RAMA and a YERUSHALMI, and a ZOHAR, and a MESILAS YESHARIM, and they don't get disregarded either and they among MANY OTHERS all say the same thing in similiar words of chabad. as written above.--PinchasC 00:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What part of "You have provided a number of writers from centuries ago as interpreted by Lubavitch; you have provided nothing showing how modern Hassidim understand these concepts. There is a huge difference." don't you understand? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JayJG. Other Hasidim have similar teachings, but how do they understand them? See my comments below. RK 18:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lubavitch hasn't interpeted any of these writers, read them yourself, (I have provided the exact wuotes and source of the quotes) and tell me where it says that modern Hassidim understand these quotes diffrently than it was written.--PinchasC 00:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You claim they understand these sources the way Lubavitch does. The onus of proof is on you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, when it has been shown that they already meant it in the same way as chabad means it because why would one say that they didn't mean it the way they said it without offering explanations, than if you want to say that they changed than you have to prove that they changed from their previously held positions.--PinchasC 00:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself. Bring current sources proving your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg: Providing one Mishna, one Yerushalmi, one Bach, one Rema, one Zohar and one Mesilat Yesharim as viewed by one particular writer within Chabad (have I gotten this right? I am to tired of this discussion to be able to care as much as I should) doesn't tell us anything but how that particular writer views those particular passages. As we all know, reading sources is a lot about interpretation. The peshat isn't necessarily the correct way to read what was meant as a mashal, for instance. So bring a different (non-Chabad, at least) modern interpretation, and we can start talking... :) -- Olve 03:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have from Rabbi Dressler, and even though he may have learned Tanya he was still the mashgiach in Ponivitch which he was only able to be if he wasn't chabad.--PinchasC 03:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JayJG offers many important points that I agree with. No one now disputes that many Hasidim have statements about the relationship between a tzaddik and God; no disputes that many Chabad Hasidic statements appear similar. But Hasidic theology (of any Hasidic group) is not based on single sentences! How do they understamd these claims? How do such claims function within their theology? These issues are crucial to understanding this issue. PinchasC, you are pointing out that Chabad Hasidim and non-Chabad Hasidim use similar (and sometimes the same) statements in constructing their theology. But Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews often use the same sources to come to radically different positions! Does the mere fact that they use the same books and sentences prove that they are the same? Of course not. How they interpret such statements, and how they reconcile real or apparent differences is important. Differences in their methodologies leads to huge differences in the resulting theology and practice. So much so that, according to some people, Orthodoxy and Reform are virtually separate faiths. That is the key point here. Wikipedia articles do not attack Reform and Orthodoxy, but they are pretty blunt in how members of these groups see each other. These articles, in fact, state that Orthodox Jews do not recognize the validity of any Reform prayerbooks or conversions. But these views are explained within their historical context, without anger, and in accord with our NPOV policy. The same can and should be done here. I believe that much of the information you removed needs to be restored. RK 18:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

What we can do is spend more time, perhaps in the article on Tzaddikim, explaining the various Jewish views on the doctrine of the Tzaddik. It can cover pre-Hasidic and post-Hasidic views, and in more detail we can explain how different groups can use the same sources to come to differerent conclusions. RK 18:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't just Chasidic texts that say these there are many non chasidic texts as well as quoted above, furthermore these non chasidic texts have comentaries written on them which explain anything out of ordinary or anything which can be misinterpreted. On the statements quoted above we don't find any commentaries which explain it in a different way than what chabad understands it as.

How would you interpret these numerous statements?--PinchasC 04:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PinchasC, your claims are factually incorrect. I am simply astonished that you are still claiming that all other Hasidic Orthodox Jews agree with you. They do not. There is no way you can imagine this, as they clearly believe that Chabad beliefs are close to heresy (or in some views, already past the boundaries of heresy.) You may wish that other Hasidic groups agree with most Chabad Jews but they don't. The only way that I can understand your denial of this point is to conclude that you are not a mainstream representative of Chabad Judaism; you may represent a small faction that other Hasidic Jews agree with. RK 23:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are making claims without backing them up with sources, I have shown that historically over the past 2,000 years similiar statements to what the Rebbe said were said, I have shown that there aren't any commentaries which explain it differently than their literal interpratation, Furthermore Jews today base their beliefs on the teachings of the Rabbis of the past 2,000 years including those books which I wuoted above. The Rebbe 50 years ago said a similiar statement and said that this is similiar to the Zohar and the Yerushalmi. Now you are coming to me and telling me that Jews never believed that a Tzaddik can become completely nulified to G-d? Now I understand if you are telling me why you can't but a Tzaddik is on a higher spiritual level than you and he can. There is no reason to say that Jews have changed their viewpoints or held any differently than what chabad believes in. There happen to be some apologetic Rabbis like shach and keller that may think that what chabad believes in isn't what Judaism believes in however they are a minority and a fraction of a percent of the viepoints about this.

Not all Jews agree with the Rabbis, but Jews generally do study their writings. Truthaboutreform 18:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And once again I ask you what did those above mentioned sources mean if not for what chabad explains it as? --PinchasC 00:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PinchasC, the onus of proof is on you. You are claiming that other Hasidic Jews agree with Chabad, despite the fact that it appears as if everyone disagrees with Chabad on this issue. Chabad Jews can argue why their interpretation is correct, but they cannot state that all other Hasidic Jews agree with them, when they plainly do not. I agree that you are using many of the same quotes, but given the vast disagreement between other Hasidic groups and much of Chabad, obviously much of Chabad is interpreting these verses in ways that differ from the standard Hasidic understanding. That is not meant as a judgement. I am merely accepting as a fact that a disgareement exists. RK 20:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a standard Hasidic understanding? Should there be? Rickyrab 22:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (proud sockpuppetteer of User:Truthaboutreform)

RK, you keep on saying that others understand these sources differently than chabad, so I ask you, How do you believe other Chasidic Groups understand these statements, and how do you understand these statements?--PinchasC 00:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rooster613 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)No, all Hasidism do not understand the nature of a Rebbe in the same way as Chabad. It is my understanding that the Tanya teaches that a Zaddik is born in a class by himself, that he is born a perfect Tzaddik, while the rest of us are born on a lower rung (benoni) and BY NATURE can never become a Rebbe. However, Rebbe Nachman of Breslov (who was a contemporary of Schneur Zalman of Liady) clearly spoke out against the idea that the soul of a Tzaddik was somehow innately different from that of an ordinary Jew. Nathan of Nemirov (his personal secretary) wrote in Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom: "The Rebbe (i.e., Nachman) spoke out very strongly against those who thought that the main reason for a Tzaddik's great attainments was the high level of his soul. He insisted that this was not true, maintaining that it depends completely on good deeds (mitzvot)and effort. He was very specific in emphasizing this. He said, "Every person can attain the highest level. It depends on nothing but your own free choice... For everything depends upon a multitude of deeds." (page 29) And now that I've tracked down this source here, I'm going to go add the reference to the Breslov page.

What are you talking about? See the first chapter of Tanya that says that King David killed his Yetzar Hara thru fasting (which is the view of the Tanya of a Tzadik that he has no Yetzar Hara) thereby making King David not being born a Tzadik but becoming a Tzadik.--PinchasC 07:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PinchasC, the purpose of Talk: pages is not to argue theology, but to argue article content. You have yet to produce a quote from a Hassidic group that proves they view this issue as Lubavitch does, and now you have another editor stating specifically that at least one Hassidic group understands this matter quite differently. Please devote your efforts to finding modern Hassidic groups who explicitly agree with the Lubavitch position, rather than continually arguing that they should agree based on the sources you use. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, the quote brought was from a source 200 years old!!! Furthermore the quote doesn't contradict what I said above, all it said was that anybody can become a Tzaddik, which I never said that, that couldn't happen.

Jayjg, How do you believe other Chasidic Groups understand these statements, and how do you understand these statements?--PinchasC 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, the quote was 200 years old. Please bring a recent quote from a Chassidic group on the matter. And you keep misunderstanding the purpose of this page, which is not for you or I to debate what the correct understanding of these matters is. Bring a citation from Satmar, Ger, Bobov, whoever, agreeing with your interpretation, and then you'll have something. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand these calls for citations. Anybody who has any real familiarity with Chasidic groups knows that you are asking for the impossible. Name a single publication that anybody could possibly point to regarding anything! Name a single public statement by any Chasidic Rebbe, even someone like the Bostoner, on any issue. The only thing I have seen is condemnations and kol koreh's, none of which had anything to do with Lubavich or anything the Rebbe said. Your assumption is that Chasidim act like the MO and print a "Journal of Contemporary Chasidic Issues." Even Satmar, the most vocal critics of Lubavich, do not take issue with the concept of tsaddik. And, the claim that the sources are 200 years old only weakens your argument when discussing Chasidim. Take two seconds and consider what the age of a sefer means to a Haredi Jew.User:PhatJew

Hasidic groups publish all the time; Wikipedia demands relevant citations. If you can't provide citations regarding the beliefs of these modern groups, then you can't put the claims in Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you resort to blind assertion when I asked for even one reference. "Name a single publication that anybody could possibly point to regarding anything!" User:PhatJew

You keep trying to reverse the burden of proof. If you think Satmar or Bobov or Ger or whoever believe something, produce a citation which proves they do. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was about to post about this. You are completely right, this is a question of burden of proof. And I am absolutely adament that if you are going to accuse Chabad of being outside of the mainstream, the burden of proof is on you. This is the very essence of the disagreement. You guys seem to think that anything which doesn't agree with you is automatically out of the bounds of Judaism. That is not so. Chabad, the Alter Rebbe and the Tanya have been accepted into mainstream Judaism. If you disagree, please state so right now, but I would be shocked. If you are going to say that something happened to change that, then you need to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. You are the ones who want to assert in this article that Chabad has somehow gone off the deep end. Once again, this is why I think it is so evident that this is just a continuation of the fight between the Chasidim and misnagdim, not anything new. The people who are against Chabad are the people who have a presumption of guilt against Chabad and require Chabad to prove its innocence. User:PhatJew

Nullifying one's own soul

I Don't understand why you insist that Jews don't believe that somone can reach a level of only doing what G-d wants thereby nulifying himself comeletly to G-d.

Even R. Eliyahu Dessler zt”l(author of Michtav Me’Eliyahu, the most influential and widely disseminated work of hashkafa of the last century)wrote “ki tzuras hatzaddikim hu Hashem yisbarech, v’heinu hach” (brought down in “marbitzei torah u’musar beginning of vol. 3 page 10).

PinchasC, you are still confused on this entire issue. No one claimed that Jews do not or cannot believe this. In fact, we agree with you that many Hasidic Jews believe this. But that is not the point. The idea you mention above is not the total sum of all Chabad religious philosophy. There is a lot more to Chabad, and it is the way that they teach and understand such things that has caused other Orthodox Jews to view them as moving beyond the boundaries of any form of Jewish faith. You are merely offering religious prooftexts for your own religious beliefs, and you are totally missing the point of the discussion. RK 13:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

And see the Bach to the Tur on Oirach Chaim Siman 47, "The purpose of this world is that one should be involved in Torah Study, So our souls should be connected in its essence with the spirituality and holiness of the giver of the Torah...And if one is learning Torah with this intention They are a Markavah (chariot [meaning completely nulified, and like one]) to the Shechina may he be blessed. That the Shechinah is actually within them because they are the room of G-d and in them in actuality is the Shechina establishing its dwelling place.

and see what the Ramchal wrote in Mesilas Yesharim chapter 26, "One that is holy and constantaly cleaves constantly to G-d, and his soul is fired up with a true understanding, with love for his creator and fear...A person like this is himself considered to me a Mishkan, and like a temple, and Mizbeiach...Therefore it is said that Tzadikim are a Markava, because the Shechina dwells upon them like it used to dwell in the holy temple.--Truthaboutchabad 08:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After looking up the above non hasidic quotes, how can you say that anybod chasidim or non chasidim understand them differntly, how much clearer can they get??? If you want to say that they don't mean exactly what they say, what do they mean, find me one source that says they they don't mean what chabad says that they mean.--PinchasC 02:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, an encyclopedia does not care if your own personal analysis "proves" that all Hasidic agree with Chabad. In the real world, other Hasidic and non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews do not agree with Chabad. Obviously, your proof is wrong; there are genuine reasons that such significant differences exist. Why do you keep ignoring this point? We are here to describe these differences, but not to present original arguments to prove that they don't exist! They simply do exist, even if it makes us uncomfortable to note this. RK 13:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

RK, Since you have agreed that others believe this that chabad believes in, why is a difference of belief in the controversy section? If you want to put something in the controversy section, put how they are different o why others don't like chabad, don't put that there is a specific disagreement if you say that, that disagreement doesn't exist. If you want to say that they son't agree with chabad, say about what don't say they don't agree about this when it's really something else.--PinchasC 00:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)