Teachings of Chabad (Lubavitch) - controversial or not?

Question

I have been reading about Chabad Lubavitch and, since I have started to be in contact with a local group, I am in doubt about the Chabad messianism (belief of some adherents about the last Rebbe).

How is the Chabad viewed in the Orthodox community with regard to this, for example if one studies in a Chabad Yeshiva will the knowledge gained be valid from the point of view of other Orthodox communities?

Maybe there are comments on this is particular (different communities may have different views but I can read them all and see for myself)?

Maybe the question is irrelevant and all the Yeshivas the same because the texts are the same?

Or maybe this 'controversy' does not affect the teaching or status of Chabad since it is not all members of Chabad holding the belief and those who do, do not teach it to newcomers?

Is your question with regard to the validity of conversion (As in you are worried that if you say that you learned in Chabad that they will not convert you) or in that you are wondering about the differences in philosophy in general? — ertert3terte, Aug 28 '12 at 03:29
@ShmuelBrin: it is about philosophy in general, I am a beginner but I have been reading about the Orthodox streams and I believe the Vilna Gaon and his approach is more in line with the history and tradition of Judaism. The point here is different understanding of Talmud, Tanakh teachings and the interpretation of Kabbalah with regard to commoners like me. I mean, that's the summarization of the differences 300 years ago, so I would like to know how does it look like now. I am afraid I would need to try both to see first, but there's only so much time in life :-) . — MichaelS, Aug 28 '12 at 04:45
@DoubleAA: My mistake, there are no classes and conversion done by Chabad in general, but it's not only about it, the question. — MichaelS, Aug 28 '12 at 04:46
@micstas re your comment to Shmuel: That sounds like a different question then the one asked above. Perhaps you should [edit] to clarify precisely what you are looking for. — Double AA, Aug 28 '12 at 04:51
Chabad in Israel, and Chabad outside of Israel are two very different things. Which Chabad are you asking about? — avi, Aug 29 '12 at 07:28
@ba, as I wrote to Michoel's answer, there has been controversy with Chabad Lubavitch since the 40's, how can you say there is no controversy? — YDK, Aug 29 '12 at 22:13
@YDK Perhaps you can source such controversy as it seems most of the people in this thread aren't aware of it. — Double AA, Aug 29 '12 at 22:34
@DoubleAA, I know that the problems started with some of the 6th Lubavitcher rebbe's action relating to bringing geula which culminated with a Lubavitch publication that mishnayos need to be learned for their nistar (with a drasha on shor shenagach). This created a big backlash from many gedolim at the time. (My rav said his rosh hayeshiva made a very big deal about it upon reading it). The above controversy is partially at the root of some of today's controversies. — YDK, Aug 29 '12 at 23:36

score 10 · Accepted Answer · answered Aug 28 '12 at 04:27

10

Being a follower of Chabad Lubavitch, I will approach this question from my perspective. It appears from your question that your primary concern with the Chabad philosophy is what you term "Chabad Messianism", and how that is perceived by other Orthodox groups. I am assuming you are referring to the belief that the Rebbe is Moshiach. I wish clarify from the start that it not my intent to debate this fact or not.

From my experience I have seen the vast majority of other Orthodox groups to be quite respectful and accepting of Chabad and consider us to be a branch of authentic Orthodox Judaism. There is always the radical vocal few that will dismiss us as Messianics, possibly without even taking the time to understand our view. Often there are other reasons behind the animosity and this is just used as an forum to argue.

[It is also important to note that is impossible to generalize that Chabad holds one way or another on this issue. I have personally encountered Lubavitchers, include Rabbonim with diverse views on the subject. Anyone who makes a blanket statement that Chabad holds x is simply wrong. Additionally it is important to remember that Chabad is an extremely inclusive group, and thus there is a very diversere group of people claiming to be Chabad. Also, those who subscribe to a more radical viewpoint are by nature more vocal so it is difficult for outsiders to hear the mainstream views.]

answered Aug 28 '12 at 04:27

Michoel

18,944
1
57
91

Thanks, I think it is not an issue for me - the matter seems to be very personal and noone will be forcing one to believe one way or the other, as I understand now. – MichaelS Aug 29 '12 at 20:20
1

Since controversy with chabad Lubavitch dates back to the 40's, I do not think it is correct to say the exception is "a few dismiss us as messianics". – YDK Aug 29 '12 at 22:10
1

I stand by my point that the those who dismiss us as Messianics are a small minority. I don't see how putting a date to the controversy changes that. (This is besides for the point that the so called Messianic debate is largely post 1994). – Michoel Aug 30 '12 at 00:38
@Michoel See YDK's most recent comment on the question where elaborates on the controversy from the 40's. – Double AA Aug 30 '12 at 05:26
@YDK Why is that the start of the controversy? While that itself might have been a controversial statement, it is hardly "the one". "The one" is Moshiach. Never since the times of the Gemara was there such a thirst and yearning for Moshiach. The foundation sefer of Chabad Chassids, Tanya is built on the focus of bringing Moshiach NOW! Same with the 2nd,3rd,4th,and 5th Chabad Rebbeim. The Lubavitch Yeshivah Tomchei Tmimim was founded in 1897 on the foundation that todays Torah scholars are not concerned about bringing Moshiach and this yeshiva will change that. Is that not controversial? – Sep 03 '12 at 19:10
@mochinrechavim, I don't know that anything that you said has any validity as you haven't validated these statements with any sources. Either way, I don't see how any of that is controversial unless something unusual was instituted because of that. – YDK Sep 04 '12 at 05:25
@YDk You didnt bring a source either. My statements are based off of over 200 years of Chabad Chassidus. Pick any source. Pick Likueti Torah, Liketi Sichos from the 1950's. Pick just about any Chabad Text and see that revealing the Atzmus Ohr Ein Sof to the simple Jew is something that has kept Chabad in controversy since 1812. Your validation does not change any of this. – Sep 04 '12 at 17:50
1

@mochinrechavim, if you have a source that chabad teachings are controversial, why don't you post that as an answer? – YDK Sep 05 '12 at 18:47

score 6 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 15 '19 at 22:14

6

Chabad is controversial because it challenges the mind to intellectually grasp the concept that the Atzmus (Essence of) Ein Sof (the Infinite Light) is present although concealed in every aspect of this physical world.

This above mention is idea can be explained through the concept of Tzimtzum. Is G-d's light contracted ie: removed from the world, or is it merely concealed, vested in creation with a purpose for the Jew to reveal it? The Lubavitcher Rebbe breaks it down to four ways of understanding (Source: Marbitzei Torah U’Mussar, Vol. III, p. 66.)

a) the tzimtzum should be interpreted literally, and moreover, that it affected G-d’s essence. The proof offered in defense of this theory is that it is impossible for the King to be found in a place of filth, Heaven forbid;

b) the tzimtzum should be interpreted literally, but that it affected only His light;

c) the tzimtzum should not be interpreted literally, but it affected the Source of light as well; and

d) the tzimtzum should not be interpreted literally, and it affected only His light.

A is followed by the Vilna Gaon and is the main maklokes between Chabad and Vilna.

R' Chaim Volozin actually holds by C and the Lubavitch Rebbe (while admits he has no proof) heard that R' Chaim was familiar with Chabad text and tried to find a resolution between Chabad and the Vilna Gaon.

Chabad follows option D and this is where the controversy begins.

Tzimtzum only effecting the light ie: revelation of G-dliness means that G-d can vest himself in this world and reveal himself through Jews, Torah, and Mitzvos.

This is the foundation of Chabad Chassidus, which is to make a Dira B'Tachtonim (Dwelling place below) for Hashem. This is sole purpose of creation and the concept has been foreign since the Churban and limited to small circles of kabbalists. Chabad revealed it to the world and this is the root of any and all controversy.

Torah Or, in the maamar Pasach Eliyahu Likkutei Torah, in the additions to Sefer Vayikra, the maamar Lehavin Mashekasuv beSefer Otzeros Chayim; Shaar HaYichud; Sefer HaMitzvos, [the maamarim entitled] Mitzvas Haamanas Elokus, and Shoresh Mitzvas HaTefillah (beginning ch. 34); in the Siddur, [the maamar] on the verse Zecher Rav Tovecho. In the maamarim of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe shlita, that have been printed, [the subject is discussed] in [the maamarim entitled:] Al Yipater Adam [56]89, Dirshu Havayah [5]691, Al Kein Yomru [5]691, [Sichos] Shavuos [5]693, p. 8, and Tov Li [5]697.

The above all sources from this above sourced letter.

“It is not possible to ask a question about a [Rebbe being a] go-between, since this is G-d Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body.” (Likutei Sichos II:p. 510-511).

This controversial enough? The Tzaddik is a Chariot for Hashem. Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov are all called chariots. (See Ch. 46 of Tanya) What is a chariot? It is something you get inside and control it to aid you in your bidding. But more importantly, a chariot is an object with no will of its own. It does exactly what its driver wants it to.

edited Jun 15 '19 at 22:14

chortkov2

9,415
12
55

answered Sep 05 '12 at 23:09

1

You may wish to edit in the source for the idea of the Avos being "chariots" to G-d, as this may not be an idea everyone is familiar with. – HodofHod Sep 05 '12 at 23:21
3

"A" was most certainly not the main source of controversy between Chabad and "Vilna" (I assume you mean the Vilna Gaon). Although there are apparantly Lubavitch texts that suggest that it was, there are absolutely no texts outside of Chabad that suggest any such thing. Not only did the Gaon's main disciple, Reb Chaim Volozhiner, espouse a view similar to that of Chabad on this issue, the Vilna Gaon himself nowhere criticises it. [to be cont.] – Shimon bM Sep 06 '12 at 09:05
4

Moreover, the Gaon's most prolific disciple, Reb Pinchas Polotsker, wrote a book called Keser Torah, in which he listed all of the things that he found objectionable about hasidism. The charge that hasidim interpret tzimtzum in a manner contrary to the interpretation of the Gaon is nowhere found within it. For more information on this controversy, from the view of non-hasidism, I recommend Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 15-17 - and elsewhere throughout. – Shimon bM Sep 06 '12 at 09:09
@ShimonbM It would be beneficial to everyone if you would post the list. While R' Chaim's view is different from that of his teacher the Gra, it is still not anywhere close to the way Chabad interprets Tzimtzum. Since Tzimtzum is the FOUNDATION of creation, the way you look at it reflects your entire outlook in this world. – Sep 06 '12 at 16:09
@ShimonbM This means, that everything on your list is going to be nothing more than a detail in the bigger picture which is Tzimtzum. If you believe tzimtzum contracted Hashem's light so it would not be in a "filthy" place then you sit in a kollel and learn Torah. If you believe Hashem's essence and light are in every particle of creation, then you bring the Torah into the marketplace and teach it to what the Litvish coined the "evil ones" because of what is said in the end of Shulchan Aruch. – Sep 06 '12 at 16:28
@ShimonbM The book can be previewed here. http://books.google.com/books?id=2AGqwFOOZdYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false I am not interested in reading into this book but did look at page 15-17. I would like to see a list of his sources since he aknowledges that many different Chassidus source (outside of Chabad as well) hold that the root of the maklokes is as I described and this root grew into the many detailed discrepancies. What sources does he find from Lithuanian Rabbonim that denied this prior to his 1998 publishing. – Sep 06 '12 at 18:26
5

When you say that something is the essence of a machlokes, that implies that it is important to both sides of the debate and not just to one. I do not deny that this issue is of great importance to hasidim, but the fact that it is nowhere mentioned by the Gaon or by Reb Pinchas (neither of whom shied away from mentioning the things that they disliked about hasidim), and the fact that Reb Chayim - even if, as you say, his view did not align directly with Chabad - disagreed with his teacher, all seems to suggest that to Lithuanian misnagdim, this was not an important issue. – Shimon bM Sep 06 '12 at 23:45
1

Allan Nadler's bibliography (both of primary and secondary literature) runs to several pages. I'm not going to type any of it out for you, especially when it seems that you already have access to his book yourself. No doubt you can preview the bibliography as easily as you previewed pages 15-17 in his first chapter. – Shimon bM Sep 06 '12 at 23:48
@ShimonbM The essence of something does not have to be "important" equally to everyone for it to be an essence. Telling me to go read a book seems to explain that outside of this book (did you read it yourself?) You have no textual understand of just how vital to your existence Tzimtzum is. – Sep 07 '12 at 00:12
2

I'm not going to spend any more time on this subject, so whether or not you choose to continue defending your answer is up to you. The question concerned why Chabad is controversial, and to suppose that people find certain things about Chabad controversial without actually knowing that those are the things that bother them is absurd. You don't have to be a maskil to understand the problem with that. But have it your way: if it's a function of your theology that people outside your community think a certain way, then who am I to tell you otherwise. – Shimon bM Sep 07 '12 at 00:39
@ShimonbM Until you list the reasons, possibly in your own answer telling me that my answer is not valid does nothing. Its been upvoted and has dozens of sources to back it inside and outside Chabad Chassidus. Please share your answers so we have something more to discuss. – Sep 07 '12 at 01:02
@user1292 Didn't he just list reasons above? – Double AA Nov 03 '13 at 21:46
@user1292 Yeah - see my post. You have your traditions on what the conflict was, and you have no interest in what the other side(s) think the conflict was. You said you have sources "outside Chabad Chassidus", but actually every single source you brought was from Chabad. That means that basically you are just talking to yourself. – MichoelR Jun 06 '23 at 17:06

MichoelR · Answer 3 · 2020-11-26T22:22:41.533

Really interesting thread. I think it does illustrate at least one reason why Chabad is "controversial": You can see from the comments that Chabad people have their traditions about the attitudes of the rest of the Orthodox world, and the rest of the Orthodox world sees those traditions as being inaccurate, out of touch. "Everyone else disagrees with us about ___ concerning tzimtzum, etc." "The Vilna Gaon came out against us because ___."
It would never occur to them to ask us.
I love Chabad guys and get along well with them, but they don't ever pay any attention to what the rest of the Orthodox world does or thinks. They do their own thing. That has its strengths and its disadvantages.
Update: I note that the original question was about messianism, and maybe I got distracted by the comments. But truth is that I think the messianism is also linked to what I wrote: If Chabad were more connected with the rest of us, they would not have gotten so deeply invested in a messianic theory that the rest of us thought was nuts.

I must say that I appreciate the upvotes, but I found this difficult to post. Chabadniks are my friends, and I have benefited from them, and maybe them from me. Still, I wish that things were otherwise - and wanted to say so. Please don't upvote me. — MichoelR, Nov 25 '20 at 21:42

score -2 · Answer 4 · answered Sep 06 '12 at 14:20

-2

Generally they are accepted (people would join them for a minyan, for example, except for maybe the more crazy messianics).

However, when it comes to halacha the rest of the Jewish world all follow the Shulchan Aruch (more or less) and Chabad do have a few significant differences from that, which also seem to be against the simple reading of all earlier sources. Most notable among them are that they do not eat Seudah Shlishis (the third meal) on Shabbos, and they do not sleep in a Succah. (Nowadays a lot of people don't sleep in the Succah, but they accept it is an obligation and have special reasons not to, such as the weather. Chabad don't hold of it being an obligation at all, which is a very different matter)

I am definitely not chas vesholom saying anything against the Baal HaTanya who wrote the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (which they follow). They certainly have their reasons (probably rooted in Kabbalah). However, since it is different from the mainstream practice, this could be a reason for people not accepting them.

answered Sep 06 '12 at 14:20

limos

656
3
6

1

Would you say that the differences in halachic interpretation are on the order of the diffs between Ashkenazim and S'fardim, or are they more extreme? – Monica Cellio Sep 06 '12 at 14:35
4

Chabad absolutely holds that it is an obligation to sleep in the sukkah. However, it is also a halacha that if sleeping in the sukkah causes discomfort, one should not do it. You may wish to correct that paragraph. – HodofHod Sep 06 '12 at 15:00
1

@limos Chabad holds by Shulchan Aruch HaRav just like the Litvish hold by Mishneh Berurah. Your examples are discussed at lenghth http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/5431/chabad-minhag-for-shalosh-seudos and http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10482/lubavitch-not-sleeping-in-a-sukka The oversimplification of Halacha above is one of the reasons for controversy. Chabad has a source for 100% of what it does and as the Alter Rebbe writes in the very beginning of Shulchan Aruch HaRav in the Laws of Tefillin, "When Kabbalah is more machmir than Halacha, we follow al pi Kabbalah." – Sep 06 '12 at 18:07
@ShmuelBrin While the other Seforim mentioned might discuss this idea, it is written explicitly in his S.A. I do not recall his source for this statement. – Apr 05 '13 at 16:31
@ShmuelBrin What is the discrepancy? – Apr 05 '13 at 18:40
@ShmuelBrin All that the A.R. is saying is that on a personal level we follow Kaballah and not Halacha when Kaballah is more machmir but we dont force this on the tzibur as a whole. It is known that the Shulchan Aruch was for Klal Yisroel and the Siddur is for the Chassidi so this is why the Siddur is more machimir on Halacha and takes Kabbalah into account more. – Apr 09 '13 at 02:18
Chabad don't sleep in a Succah because they accept that it is a mitzva to do so, but they also accept that if one is uncomfortable one must leave a Succah, and they paskin therefore that one shouldn't sleep in the Succah because it is so holy that one is too uncomfortable to sleep. – Rabbi Kaii May 24 '23 at 19:56

score -4 · Answer 5 · answered Nov 24 '20 at 20:05

-4

The Alter Rebbe was the main disciple of the Maggid who was the main disciple of the baal shem tov who's teachings stem from the AriZAL and Etz Chaim which is accepted by everyone, including the vilna gaon, the only legitimate contraversery was a bunch of false reports made to the vilna gaon which implied the alter rebbe didn't follow the torah chas veshalom, and therefore he refused to meet with him, but those repots have been proven false a number of times, and the main reason for misnagdim in the first place was because they thought that chabad would cause people to go away from judaism, but time has shown the opposite, that those who subscribe to the vilna gaon in general became reform or conservative (AKA total karites) and those who kept to chabad and chasidism are the more frum people of the world, so there is no basis to it at all in any way whatsoever in the slightest ever

answered Nov 24 '20 at 20:05

B''H Bi'ezras -- Boruch Hashem

1
4
19

1

The question is about modern Chabad, not what Chabad was 200 years ago. – Mordechai Nov 24 '20 at 20:28
@mordechai doesn't say the word modern chabad I'm the question. If it was made by tzadikim who know the future then what the difference? – Nov 27 '20 at 22:00
See my answer. You should ask other people why they find Chabad controversial, not yourselves. Also, the rest of us certainly do not believe that the Vilna Gaon could have been fooled by false reports. Perhaps your traditions leave out points for the other side? – MichoelR Nov 30 '20 at 15:32

score -8 · Answer 6 · edited Sep 06 '12 at 14:44

-8

In America Chabad is better organized than elsewhere and it is closer to mainstream Jewishness than elsewhere, but they still suffer from a very strong Zionist leaning which is not in line with mainstream Jewish belief.

In addition they have involved themselves in kiruv (bringing others close) uberalles, it is now increasingly common for people who become religious through Chabad having to leave because Chabad events do not hold to mainstream standards of gender separation and other issues.

Thus, some see them as having removed themselves from mainstream Jewish practice, possibly the price of inclusiveness.

edited Sep 06 '12 at 14:44

Monica Cellio

56,645
10
113
348

answered Sep 03 '12 at 16:58

Joe Dos

47

4

What gives you the idea that "mainstream Jewishness" isn't Zionist-leaning? – b a Sep 03 '12 at 17:23
3

Chabad zionist?? I don't think so... – ertert3terte Sep 03 '12 at 17:47
4

I have yet to be at a Chabad event (and I've been to many) that did not hold to "mainstream standards of gender separation", so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Additionally, it's interesting to me that in your last paragraph, you could switch "Chabadnik" for just about any other group (Yeshivish, Sephardi, Chassidic) and it would still be true. The fact is, that different Jewish groups have different focal points, practices, and beliefs. It's the ones that all Jews share in common that are the important ones - and the ones that you seem to overlook. – HodofHod Sep 03 '12 at 18:08
1

I agree with HodofHod. @ShmuelBrin, sure it is! The last rebbe did much work on behalf of both the state and its residents. – msh210 Sep 03 '12 at 21:28
3

@msh210 Do not confuse keeping over 6 million Jews safe from millions of enemies surrounding them with supporting a Secular Israeli government that is built on the destruction of Torah Values and the nationalization of the Jewish religion. The Lubavitcher Rebbe has many published talks written and audio that make the Satmar Rebbe look like Rav Kook. Lubavitch is NOT Zionist and we do not support Zionism in the sense of anything outside of keeping Jews safe and not giving away even one inch of Holy Land which the zionist do for "peace". – Sep 03 '12 at 21:49
4

Joe, your answer contains (a) unsourced assertions and (b) judgement/opinions. I am going to edit out the latter. You are welcome to further edit the answer. Thanks. – Monica Cellio Sep 06 '12 at 14:41
3

The whole question of whether or not the often-pointlessly-argued-over term "Zionist" applies to Chabad is a complete red herring with respect to the question at hand, which is the validity of Chabad "from the point of view of other Orthodox communities." I move that all comments regarding application of the term "Zionism" to Chabad be stricken (pinging most recent mod: @MonicaCellio). ... – Isaac Moses Sep 06 '12 at 14:53
2

... This answerer suggests that Chabad's view with respect to Israel is outside the Jewish mainstream. Unsupported and rightfully downvoted as it is, I'd say that this claim is not worth addressing, but a worthwhile response would simply demonstrate that these attitudes are well within the mainstream. – Isaac Moses Sep 06 '12 at 14:54
2

I have purged several tangential comments on what Zionism means and whether it applies to Chabad. Please refrain from further discussion on the topic on the comments here. That is not the focus of this question. – Monica Cellio Sep 06 '12 at 20:18
@MonicaCellio, I don't know if you or another moderator declined my flag, but my point was that it is not an answer supported by facts. It is a soapbox answer that is incorrectly founded on false presumptions and is inflammatory to a large segment of the community. Would it have been better to simply flag it as "unwelcome", rather than giving a wordy explanation in "other"? – Seth J Sep 07 '12 at 13:51
1

@SethJ, in response to your flag I edited the answer. I didn't mark the flag helpful because you could have done that too; it didn't require a mod. If you think it's still inappropriate, please explain. If you think it's wrong or otherwise a bad answer, the SE tool for that is the downvote. (Obviously others agree with that assessment.) – Monica Cellio Sep 07 '12 at 14:05
@MonicaCellio fair enough, although, then, why have a flag tool at all? Any answer can be edited. I figured that, since it was based on ideas that were unsupported, in some cases demonstrably false, and inflammatory, that it could/should just be removed. – Seth J Sep 07 '12 at 14:08
1

@SethJ, the line between "bad" (downvote) and "unredeemable" (spam et al) isn't always clear. Flagging definitely helps with the latter, and I've seen and responded to those kinds of flags. Maybe this is a topic for meta? – Monica Cellio Sep 07 '12 at 14:16
Chabad is neither Zionist nor does chabad encourage mingling between men and women. Everything about this answer is incorrect. – Dude Mar 11 '20 at 20:37

Teachings of Chabad (Lubavitch) - controversial or not?

6 Answers6

Linked