Sunday, July 06, 2008

Interesting (And Some Disturbing) Posts and Articles On Gimmel Tammuz

At least, from my perspective.
  1. Avakesh posts a video on "growing up with the Rebbe"
  2. At DwellingPlaceBelow, Eliyahu ben Pinchas discusses how tzaddikim do not really die and how it is possible that the Lubavitcher Rebbe left this world so as to deal with requests more speedily. He makes comparisons to the Satan showing Moshe's coffin, and to Yaakov Avinu lo meis. And seems to think the Rebbe is mashiach, as well.

    So as to relate it to a parsha, I will quote one quote:
    "Did Moshe die? Rashi says he buried himself!!! (I’ve often wondered what kind of a death that was then!)"
    It is indeed a good question, what it means that Moshe buried himself. However, Ibn Ezra says the very same thing, hu kavar atzmo, and Ibn Ezra is not one who goes off on midrashic, far-fetched readings of pesukim, and is not one to put miracles into the Biblical narrative where the plain meaning of the text is otherwise. The answer is that Ibn Ezra comments "hu kavar atzmo shenichnas bemaarah bagai." That is, we are not talking about our modern day burial inside of graves in the ground, in cemetaries. Rather, we are talking about burial in a cave. And so Moshe entered a cave by himself, lay down, and then his spirit passed into the next world.

  3. Mystical Paths talks about being a chossid of a rebbe. Frankly, this topic is a touchy one, such that speech must be chosen carefully. Using as well as avoiding certain terms has a connotation. Thus, when he states:
    On this 14th Gimmel Tammuz, the 14th year without the Rebbe's physical presence among us, let us remember that we have the instructions. We don't need to find new paths or do wild new things, we don't need to shout at our fellow or make strange new slogans.
    the words "without the Rebbe's physical presence" are mildlyalarming, since these seem carefully chosen words, to avoid saying zatzal, or that the Rebbe died. And the idea of not needing to make new slogans seems to convey that they have the same goal as those shouting slogans. That goal may be to bring mashiach through performing of mitzvos (my goal is to do mitzvos because Hashem commanded them and because they are the right thing to do), but it suggests they may have the same belief in the identity of that moshiach.

  4. A Simple Jew posts links to old posts -- guest postings and question and answers -- in honor of Gimmel Tammuz. This includes two discussions about using Igros haKodesh to communicate with the Rebbe. Personally, I think that this is a form of divination to communicate with the dead, and I know that all sorts of frum-sounding rationalizations are possible to justify any problematic practice.

  5. Aussie Echo reprints an article by Yanki Tauber from last year. I will stress that he does not read it in a meshichist, denial-of-Rebbe's death way. Rather, as an expression of how he feels. But as I explained last year, I think that there is this message being surreptitiously conveyed. Which is unfortunate, because that would be the perversion of the yahrtzheit of a tzaddik.

  6. Life of Rubin talks about the difficulty of coming to terms with the Rebbe's death. There is nothing wrong with this -- except of course in terms of Rav Belsky's comments about the personality cult, discussed a month or so ago.

    Also, in terms of
    I remember the Shabbos before in front of 770 a non Lubavitcher who must have been visiting for Shabbos was baiting me and some of my then Yeshiva friends into a debate. It was about us “accepting the inevitable possibility” and I remember how angry we got with him. We weren’t prepared for this, we weren’t even thinking it was possible.
    It was not "baiting." The fact is that (many) Lubavitcher chassidim did not think that the Rebbe could die because he was mashiach, and further that the Rebbe said that mashiach would come in "our" generation. (They have since revised this theology in various ways.) This was an important theological point to determine, and press. Unfortunately this important point also mixed with personal feelings for the Rebbe.

  7. Chabad.org posts a video of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, zatzal, and titles it "He, too, is alive." Here is my partial excerpt of the closed-captioning. Click to see the video:
    A tzaddik never leaves this world, only the restrictions of his body are removed, and he continues on with unlimited influence. Although we cannot see it physically, we need only create the wherewithal ... In the words of the Talmud: Just as his children are alive, so is he alive. {spoken about Yaakov Avinu lo meis}

    Observing the conduct of the Rebbe's children, his students, those who studied under him directly or through his writings, or teachings - when "his children are alive" when the Rebbe's influence lives within them, and through them, enlivens those around them, then "he too, is alive."

    The Talmud needs no proof that our father, Jacob, lives on in heaven. We're talking about life in this world! When his children are alive, the Rebbe lives as well -- with even greater presence and vitality than before.

    When he sees those who during his lifetime were his "chldren," continue to progress and embody his efforts to spread Judaism, Torah and Mitzvos -- and they do so pleasantly and peacefully, but with true fortitude and untiring determination, persistance onecnce, twice, as many times as is necessary until the success is guaranteed, then the Rebbe, too, is alive. Then the Rebbe, himself, is present among all those who gather in his honor, and through the delight we bring his soul, he blesses and empowers us spiritually and physically -- in all our endeavors in general, and especially in our work to fulfill his mandate...
    I think that given the way these words and ideas have been taken -- and perhaps even the way the Lubavitcher Rebbe intended them, this is not the right video to show on his Yahrtzheit.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Any way you want to look at it, dead is dead.

Akiva said...

As indeed carefully written that article was, I'm somewhat surprised to find you coming to the opposite conclusions than it tried to present.

I would guess the missing element that led to that is my desire not to start a battle with those with more edge positions, and that not being clear from my careful phrasing.

There is significant material from traditional sources (Gemora, Zohar, etc) written about tzaddikim's influence after their physical death, continued interaction with the world and spiritual presence. There's also solid traditions NOT to write zt"l (and other similar things), for it puts us in the position of judging a tzaddik's portion.

Yet, understandably, because of some people's massive overreaction to these type of writings, you're looking for signs of closet mishichistim. Indeed, the yetzer hara has been doing a good job in taking the direction of the Rebbe and the efforts of Lubavitch towards the geulah and twisting them to the other side.

(If you have a question on someones positions, you could ask.)

joshwaxman said...

"There is significant material from traditional sources (Gemora, Zohar, etc) written about tzaddikim's influence after their physical death"

yes, I am aware of this material*. (*I am not going to get into the authenticity of Zohar here.) And that material has been twisted to justify some very un-Jewish ideas, of the Rebbe coming back from the dead, or of the Rebbe assuming almost (or exactly) Godlike powers.

"There's also solid traditions NOT to write zt"l"
and there are very solid traditions *to* write it. How many times in rabbinic literature is Rambam referred to as Rambam za"l? And one sees often enough in Lubavitch literature that when two deceased rabbis are referred to, and one is the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the other person gets zatz"al while the Lubavitcher Rebbe does not. The Arizal even has "zal". And you yourself wrote in an old post "AriZal, zt"l".

And this is all beside the point. When there is a theological question of this sort, where people are insisting that the relevant tzaddik is alive in some way and thus still mashiach, it is specifically there that one *should* write zatzal. Kedei Lehotzi milibam shel tzedukkim is an important idea, when the circumstances warrant it.

If some of your readers were Christian, would you carefully avoid statements that indicated to Singularity of God? I would hope not.

Meanwhile, there are groups of Lubavitch would maintain out loud the Rebbe is mashiach. And there are others that think it so, but think it prudent to remain silent, or more specifically to speak ambiguously so that "hameivin yavin" but otherwise have plausible deniability. And others that think so, but for this "plausible deniability" avoid direct mention of the Rebbe's death.

It may be that others, such as you, do so so as not to annoy the meshichist Lubavitch, but then this creates an environment where they think such is accepted and mainstream. And it also gives the actual meshichists a great camouflage.

Yanki Tauber in the aforementioned article refers to "the news," and to "the funeral," but carefully never mentions that the Rebbe died.

You write "If you have a question on someones positions, you could ask."
That may be so, but by using guarded speech you are creating a situation in which one has to ask. That is not a good thing to do.

You used the ideas of the influence of a tzaddik continuing after death, by his followers' actions (though you stated it as maintaining a connection) in a way that many take Yaakov Avinu lo meis. But as cited, the Rebbe zatz"al applied it to his father-in-law at a very uncomfortable level, of actually being alive. And some take these sources to allow the Lubavitcher Rebbe to be mashiach.

I personally think that the best way to honor the Rebbe is to categorically state that he is a deceased tzaddik, so that others do not have opportunity to turn him into an avodah zarah. Just as Yaakov Avinu insisted he be moved out of Egypt, and just as we do not know the location of Moshe Rabbenu's kever.

I should not have to ask these questions of every person, but here is your chance to qualify your positions:

1) Do you think the Rebbe is dead?

2) Do you think that Rav Moshe Feinstein is dead?

3) Do you think mashiach can come back from the dead?

4) Do you think the Rebbe ever was, in any way, a physical manifestation of God on earth? Would you say he is, or was, "atzmus melubash b'guf," in a way related to "ain od melivado"?

5) Do you think Igros Kodesh is a legitimate and/or effective way of communicating with the Rebbe zatzal?

6) Do you think Igros Moshe is a legitimate and/or effective way of communicating with Rav Moshe Feinstein, zatza"l?

7) Even if you do not hold of the above, do you hold that any of the above positions are valid positions? What is your certainty on the above matters? 99% vs. 1%, 80% vs. 20%, etc.?

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Akiva said...

I disagree with some of what you said, but you also represent some valid points. Rather than breaking it down, I'll just answer your questions straight up:

1) Do you think the Rebbe is dead?

- I attended the funeral, my chavruta was involved in building the aaron. In every physical sense of the word, the Rebbe died and was buried in Queens.

2) Do you think that Rav Moshe Feinstein is dead?

- As far as I know.

3) Do you think mashiach can come back from the dead?

- There seems to be a minority opinion in the Gemora that states this is a possibility. This is clearly not normative Jewish belief and would seem to run counter to the simple understanding of the Rambam. Personally, I don't completely discount the possibility given the Gemora.

4) Do you think the Rebbe ever was, in any way, a physical manifestation of God on earth? Would you say he is, or was, "atzmus melubash b'guf," in a way related to "ain od melivado"?

- Absolutely positively not. Further, I consider this belief to be 100% avodah zarah, and any Jew who professes such belief, whether otherwise fully mitzvah observant or not, to have left Jewish practice and be one who can not be counted as part of the community (for a minyan or any other purpose).

5) Do you think Igros Kodesh is a legitimate and/or effective way of communicating with the Rebbe zatzal?

- Effective and/or communicating - no. As a valid form of what is commonly known as a Goral HaGra, yes.

6) Do you think Igros Moshe is a legitimate and/or effective way of communicating with Rav Moshe Feinstein, zatza"l?

- Same.

7) Even if you do not hold of the above, do you hold that any of the above positions are valid positions? What is your certainty on the above matters? 99% vs. 1%, 80% vs. 20%, etc.?

I think my answers were clear.

joshwaxman said...

Thanks.

joshwaxman said...

Just a followup. While your answers were pretty clear, you use words to temper your position, something I do often myself:

"There seems to be a minority opinion in the Gemora that states this is a possibility. This is clearly not normative Jewish belief and would seem to run counter to the simple understanding of the Rambam. Personally, I don't completely discount the possibility given the Gemora."

"Seems" takes the responsibility off of yourself, saying it is apparent, without endorsing or not endorsing the position. You use this in terms of the gemara and the Rambam. I can accept in terms of the gemara (though I have my own way of understanding Rashi). But by applying "seems" to the Rambam, I feel compelled to to ask:

1) Do you think that creative reinterpretations in regard to this Rambam (e.g. neherag, e.g. bimkomo) are legitimate?

2) Do you think the Rebbe is still a possible candidate for mashiach, coming back from the dead? Can you quantify this possibility for yourself? Is it a remote possibility, a 50-50 possibility, or what?

As an aside, personally, when the gemara in Sanhedrin 98b states
אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
I would endorse Rashi's *first* interpretation as correct, that it is talking about literally Daniel, and furthermore would state that it is difficult to relegate Rav to the status of a minority opinion. However, I would also note that Rav does *not* say that "if from the dead, like Rabbenu haKadosh." The paradigm for a mashiach from the dead is not a "failed" contemporary potential mashiach, but rather a famous Biblical character from Beis David, such as Daniel. And that even while holding in some paradigm of mashiach from the dead as a possibility, Rav is explicitly rejecting here the possibility of a Simon, of Jesus, or bar Kochva, or Rabbenu HaKadosh, Shabtai Tzvi, or Avraham Abulafia, or Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson zatzal coming back from the dead in order to be mashiach.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

joshwaxman said...

And a third and fourth follow-up:
You write:
"In every physical sense of the word, the Rebbe died and was buried in Queens."

Unfortunately, and as hard as it may be to believe, that statement also leaves wiggle room. E.g. some will say that that is what happens on a physical level, but there is a higher perception of reality, such that from the Torah's perspective, the Rebbe is still alive, and thus we are not talking about mashiach from the dead. Not that I am saying you yourself are giving wiggle room, but unfortunately, there are those who do, such that it is non-trivial to simply ask questions, get answers, and be done with it. So, as further followups:

3) Do you agree with what the Lubavitcher Rebbe zatzal said above? Statements such as "We're talking about life in this world?"

4) Do you think that this non-physical status of being alive means that there may be no problem of mashiach coming back from the dead?

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Akiva said...

1 - The Rambam writes killed, not died. That's the basis of my "seems".

2 - From the Rambam's list of things for Moshiach to do, the Rebbe would currently seem to come closest to fulfilling this list, from any generation. Though, the farther we go back, the less detail we have to make my statement sustainable on accuracy.

Tying into your aside, similarly while the Rambam writes 'killed', clearly (to me) until the list is fulfilled, at best even while alive the Rebbe qualified as a "potential" Moshiach.

On the wiggle room, my first response is AHHHHHHH. This is the common the jumping off point into the deep end, padded rooms, and out of Judaism. There is talk in the Gemora and other sources about dead tzaddikim not dying, continuing to interact with the world physically while "dead?", not decomposing, being dug up and spoken to. Ode Yosef Chai, Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai Vekayam, etc. Similar ly, statements of tzaddikim having more impact on this world after their death.

As far as I understand, all such things are some level of spiritual interaction with the physical world, indicating an ongoing influence of ideas and avodas Hashem. All such people are qualified as dead, though in some exceptional cases we see some _minimal_ (and generally momentary) physical interaction with the world.

I believe the only not-dead yet left this world but returning for interaction we accept is Eliyahu HaNavi.

Regarding the Rebbe's statement you quote I agree is a very poor choice for a yaretzheit. My understanding is the Rebbe is trying to explain the types of items I'm referring to above. When people who clearly stopped bodily functioning (talk about parsing words) are referred to as "alive", what does that mean? The Rebbe does a nice job of explaining that.

What the Rebbe does not say is that person has a physio-spiritual bodily presence that is walking around being alive-but-not-seen. And this unseen hidden physio-spiritual bodily presence just needs to be revealed. As far as I can tell, that's a hopeful fantasy at best, and a wonderful job of the yetzer hara at worst taking concepts of Moshiach and the geulah and turning them into a joke, a danger, and making the whole subject of Moshiach one to be avoided.

joshwaxman said...

1) As I've spoken about many times on this blog, midrash is not a non-literal reading, but rather a hyper-literal reading, taking things more literal than they would on a peshat level. When Rambam said neherag, the straightforward understanding is that he had Bar Kochba and/or Jesus in mind, and so used that verb. Dibra Torah beHoveh. I understand that that this is the basis of your "seems" but you did not qualify what you meant by "seems." Do you think, therefore, that a different interpretation is in any way convincing, such that the Rebbe was not ruled out by this Rambam?

Furthermore, the full context is
אם לא הצליח עד כה, או נהרג,
Did the Rebbe succeed until that point? No. He died before succeeding until that point.

Such that he would no longer be bechezkas mashiach, but rather, as Rambam writes, בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה, והרי הוא ככל מלכי בית דוד השלמים הכשרים שמתו.

2) I would have to disagree with him being the closest to fulfilling the Rambam's conditions. Rambam's paradigm appears to be based on Bar Kochba. And taking his words at face value, rather than as derash, it is extremely difficult to cast the Rebbe has fulfilling many of the conditions. *David ben Gurion* came closer to fulfilling many of the conditions, as conceived by the Rambam:

ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד, הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצוות כדוד אביו, כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה, ויכוף בה כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה, וילחם מלחמות ה' – הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח.

Let us parse this:
a) ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד. Was the Rebbe a king? Certainly not in the literal sense. If you want to read it as derash, fine, but realize that you are reading it as derash.

b) הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצוות כדוד אביו, כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה
This king is supposed to be religious, not like certain kings who were irreligious, or were Sadducees. The Rebbe was religious, but he was not a king.

c) ויכוף בה כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה
As king, he will see up a theocracy under his monarchy, such that religious law becomes the law, such that everyone is compelled to do it. Again, the paradigm is one of monarchy. Kiruv is nice and all, but this was not the Rambam's conception, al derech hapeshat.

The Rebbe did not fulfill this. But David ben Gurion was not Orthodox, but he did take steps to set Orthodox, Pharisee law, as the law of the land, to an extent:

"He sent a letter to Agudat Israel promising that the Shabbat would be Israel's official day of rest, there would be no civil marriages, and the Orthodox sector would be granted autonomy in the sphere of religious education."

d) וילחם מלחמות ה. This does NOT mean making people religious. This means physically leading people in fighting wars, such as to reconquer eretz yisrael. The fact that Tzivos Hashem is named that is cute, but that is not fighting the wars of Hashem, on a peshat level. We can see that because in the next statement about success, Rambam talks about succeeding in these wars -- ונצח כל האומות שסביביו. Again, David ben Gurion is a much closer candidate than the Rebbe in terms of fulfilling the actions required

e) הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח
Such a person is under the presumption of being mashiach, but we are not yet sure.

So the Rebbe is an extremely *weak* candidate. I am not saying that David ben Gurion (named David, by the way) is mashiach, but in terms of fulfilling the stipulations of the Rambam, he is so, so, much closer. Only by kvetching and reading derash into the Rambam can you claim the Rebbe was even bechezkas mashiach.

But then, people take it a step further:

f)
אם עשה והצליח, ונצח כל האומות שסביביו, ובנה מקדש במקומו

He succeeded at kiruv and helping establish the state of Israel (?), and he built up the mikdash -- 770 -- in its place. This is obviously nonsense.

David ben Gurion did fulfill ונצח כל האומות שסביביו. But he missed out on his opportunity to build the mikdash in its place, leaving the Temple Mount in Muslim hands, stating "The Western Wall is for the Jews at the moment, and the Temple Mount is for the Muslims at the moment, and that is the reality we have to accept."

וקבץ נדחי ישראל –
g) and helped bring in Russian Jewry.

But looking again at Ben Gurion, just for comparison:
"In 1948, as head of the provisional government, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel and the beginning of the "ingathering of the exiles""

"In the first five years of statehood, Ben-Gurion's forceful and charismatic leadership as Prime Minister led to waves of mass immigration which doubled the country's population. He directed absorption endeavors, investing the majority of the new nation's limited resources in integrating the immigrants; secured outlying areas by building settlements on the periphery; and instituted universal education in a non-partisan public school system."

Such a person is:
הרי זה משיח בוודאי, (ויתקן את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה' ביחד, שנאמר: "כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה' ולעבדו שכם אחד") (צפניה ג,ט):

But the kvetches of mashiach bevadai only follow from a midrashic reading of Rambam, which Rambam never intended.

By the way, "David Melech Yisrael Chai veKayam" in all likelihood does not mean that. See Rashi on the daf in Rosh haShana 25b, see the Rema in Orach Chaim. In fact, I'll be posting about this soon, so you can see my post.

At any rate, thank you for the clarifications.
Kol Tuv,
Josh

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin