4

There are 3 religions that says so. The obvious one is Christianity with that being it's central term. The second one is Hindu. Khrisna is said to be a God incarnate.

But in torah I often see stories about Abraham meeting some guys and recognize that the guy is G_d himself.

Genesis 18 for example says And Jehovah appeareth unto him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day; 2 and he lifteth up his eyes and looketh, and lo, three men standing by him, and he seeth, and runneth to meet them from the opening of the tent, and boweth himself towards the earth, 3 And he saith, 'My Lord, if, I pray thee, I have found grace in thine eyes, do not, I pray thee, pass on from thy servant.

So here Jehovah (=God?) appear unto him among the oaks and sit. So who is this Jehovah that sit at the opening of the tent? I thought God never incarnate? How can he sit at the opening of the tent?

Also we have Jacob wrestle with G_d with G_d's performance not being very impressive. G_d can't escape Jacob's hold.

So do jews believe that G_d, once in a while, take humans' form?

I was writing an answer on main differences between christians and jewish torah. I thought jewish translation would definitely translate el/elohym as angels or divine beings in case of Jacob wrestling. I was surprised to find out that jewish translation is actually the same with christian translation. - Genesis Chapter 32 בְּרֵאשִׁית

28 And he said unto him: 'What is thy name?' And he said: 'Jacob.' כט וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא יַעֲקֹב יֵאָמֵר עוֹד שִׁמְךָ--כִּי, אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי-שָׂרִיתָ עִם-אֱלֹהִים וְעִם-אֲנָשִׁים, וַתּוּכָל. 29 And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.' ל וַיִּשְׁאַל יַעֲקֹב, וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּידָה-נָּא שְׁמֶךָ, וַיֹּאמֶר, לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ, שָׁם. 30 And Jacob asked him, and said: 'Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.' And he said: 'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?' And he blessed him there. לא וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם, פְּנִיאֵל: כִּי-רָאִיתִי אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁי. 31 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'

Hei, it's actual jewish translation. Genesis Chapter 32 בְּרֵאשִׁית. Compare to Genesis 32:28.

Many people argued that the word elohim does not necessarily means God. However, the jewish translation clearly translate that as God in this particular verse

And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.' - Genesis Chapter 32 בְּרֵאשִׁית.

Ken Graham
  • 583
  • 1
  • 6
  • 13
user4951
  • 4,343
  • 4
  • 34
  • 56
  • 3
    welcome to Judaism.SE, and thanks for bringing your question here! – Isaac Moses Aug 01 '11 at 13:48
  • So is Abraham questioning God or one of his angels when he talked about Sodom? yltbible.com/genesis/18.htm . The word is Jehovah there – user4951 Aug 23 '11 at 06:23
  • I thought jewish translation would definitely translate el/elohym as angels or divine beings in case of Jacob wrestling. I was surprised to find out that jewish translation is actually the same with christian translation. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0132.htm . – user4951 Oct 30 '11 at 08:49
  • 3
    Why is this so voted down? Are people dismissing it as a non-question? – Adam Mosheh Apr 11 '12 at 04:48
  • 2
    I tended to ask controversial questions. I seek God. Sorry if I offend anyone. Where else would I find him if not on jewish/christian forum? +1 for Adam nevertheless. – user4951 Apr 11 '12 at 09:29
  • Everyone says that elohim on those verses do not mean God. However, jewish translation actually uses God. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0132.htm – user4951 Oct 30 '14 at 11:47
  • @JimThio, and yet he actually fought with an angel. No one says it can't refer to G-d (e.g. Genesis 1:1), just that it doesn't necessarily. It is like calling G-d "Master". G-d isn't the exclusive referent of the term. – Yishai Oct 30 '14 at 13:10
  • 2
    @AdamMosheh: Dunno. I've voted it up. – unforgettableidSupportsMonica Dec 19 '14 at 08:05
  • actually that's the problem with hebrew language. If eloah/elohim can mean many things, then what is the word that's equivalent to "god" in english? – user4951 Dec 19 '14 at 13:38
  • Very related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/70853/do-the-rishonim-that-hold-g-d-can-have-physical-form-e-g-rav-moshe-taku-etc – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 14:05

6 Answers6

26

No, no, no. Judaism makes clear that G-d has no physical form, nor does (nor can) He ever take one on.

You're confusing several stories about angels, which are heavenly beings that can take human form, with their Boss.

Abraham invites three guests who turn out to be angels; similarly, Jacob wrestles with a mysterious man, who is likely to have been an angel. He is told "you wrestled with both Elohim and man successfully"; see this question for more; if you track the detailed uses of the word Elohim in the Bible, it doesn't always mean G-d. Here it's translated "Heavenly forces."

Community
  • 1
Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • So all those are angels? As a half agnostic half christian I am surprised. I never knew all these. – user4951 Aug 01 '11 at 15:05
  • What about God that walked around in Eden's garden. He's not corporeal too? – user4951 Aug 01 '11 at 15:06
  • 5
    @Jim: the expression there is "they heard the voice of G-d walking around..." - not G-d Himself. See also zaq's answer. – Alex Aug 01 '11 at 15:43
  • 8
    @Jim Thio, not angels in the sense of fat toddlers with wings and harps; that's another religion, not us. The word used in torah for the beings in these various encounters is usually but not always "malach", best translated as "messenger" or "emissary". Malachim in Judaism are part of the heavenly court, created by God to do specific jobs; they are not independent agents or the spirits of dead people. – Monica Cellio Aug 01 '11 at 17:38
  • 1
    Just on the 'messenger' not 'angel' point - I often make this correction as well, but I read recently that the Greek word from which 'angel' derives means the same thing. Your distinction is no less important as a result. I just found it interesting. – WAF Aug 01 '11 at 19:26
  • so elohim means something like the word lord in english. It can mean God, it can also mean one of His henchmen. Christians bible always translate elohim as God. You mean christians' translators are wrong? Also Abraham asked the "beings" if he would spare Sodom if there are 5 people. The "beings" answered directly without asking his superior first. http://theflyfishingrabbi.blogspot.com/2007/11/questioning-god-in-bible-abraham-was.html . So the being that's in front of Abraham is not God himself? – user4951 Aug 23 '11 at 06:14
  • So is Abraham questioning God or one of his angels when he talked about Sodom? http://yltbible.com/genesis/18.htm (young translation is the closest to original language if you don't know hebrew :). The word is Jeh-vah there. – user4951 Aug 23 '11 at 06:18
  • @Jim Thio, check your text carefully. Start at Genesis 18:16: the "men" (turn out to be angels) got up and glanced at Sodom, and Abraham was walking with them to send them; then G-d (Tetragrammaton) said [18:20-21] "will I cover-up my actions from Abraham? ..." Then the "men" walk away [18:22], and Abraham talks with G-d (Tetragrammaton), arguing over whether to destroy Sodom. (Until 18:33). The angels have already gone and are on their way to Sodom while this conversation takes place; Abraham is debating with G-d. By the way, they're called "men", not "angels", in Abraham's presence. – Shalom Aug 23 '11 at 18:56
  • And Jehovah appeareth unto him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day; 2 and he lifteth up his eyes and looketh, and lo, three men standing by him, and he seeth, and runneth to meet them from the opening of the tent, and boweth himself towards the earth, 3 And he saith, 'My Lord, if, I pray thee, I have found grace in thine eyes, do not, I pray thee, pass on from thy servant – user4951 Sep 28 '11 at 08:03
  • @Jim Thio. There are two ways to read "my L/lord" there. Either Abraham is saying to G-d (whose presence he had been experiencing), "excuse me please for a minute while I attend to these guests"; or he is addressing the most prominent of the 3 men (assumed to be their leader), "my lord, please stop here and have something to eat" – Shalom Sep 28 '11 at 14:23
  • Let me try to understand. So God talk to Abraham telepathically? That God is not one of those men? Wow. Saying excuse me to God? Okay we can cross that out. Why would God say to those 3 men "my lord?". Who are those 3 men that outrank Abraham? – user4951 Sep 29 '11 at 04:18
  • @shalom while God may not incarnate, how come the almighty "cannot" once in a while take a physical form. – user4951 Sep 30 '11 at 06:17
  • "Why cannot once in a while"... it's like "why can't G-d make a rock so heavy He can't lift it." Because doing so means being limited, and that's not G-d. – Shalom Oct 02 '11 at 10:22
  • 1
    Shalom, saying G-d "can't" is a fallacy. By definition of omnipotent, you cannot say that G-d is incapable of something. In essence, you've stumbled upon the paradox of attempting to describe the infinite. It cannot be done. Judaism applies adjectives to G-d only insofar as he has applied those same attributes to himself (and us- m'bsari echze Elokai). But those are not limiters on G-d. Describing G-d's essence is a dangerous pursuit, prone to lots of contradictions, mostly because hasagos hamehus is beyond us. Interesting article on this – HodofHod Oct 31 '11 at 14:19
  • That's exactly my point HodofHod. God can do anything, including taking humans' form should he like. Whether He ever does that or not is a different story. One billion people believe He had a son outside marriage that's actually himself. I don't know whether that's true or not. Then again, kaballah says that Israel, torah, and God is one, which is even more crazy than Christians. – user4951 Apr 11 '12 at 09:32
  • 4
    I'm surprised that after all of this discussion, nobody downvoted the answer. I did (sorry), because I don't believe that this proves that God cannot take physical form, merely that passages that one might think refer to such things should not be understood as such. Also, there's a Yerushalmi (Yoma 5:2) that strongly indicates that even though God has no body, He can make one to represent Himself if He so wishes, though the Rambam (and others) would almost certainly interpret this Yerushalmi differently. – הנער הזה Mar 18 '15 at 05:31
  • 1
    @Matt Shalom isn't saying God can't allow people to think they see a representation of Himself; he's just rejecting the possibility of incarnation. Y'vamos 49b reconciles the Torah's declaration that "No man can see Me and live" (Ex. 33:20) with Isaiah's vision of God by explaining that all prophets but Moses saw prophetic visions colored by their own minds (hence Isaiah's perception). Moses, with unadulterated prophecy, perceived that God cannot truly be seen. Likewise, Shimon HaTzadik saw a divinely inspired vision (Yoma 5:2), but his mind caused him to perceive a vision of God as a man. – Fred Aug 01 '16 at 06:55
  • 1
    @Matt ...See also Tosafos' version (M'nachos 109b, s.v. "נזדמן") of the Yerushalmi, which proposes that it was the Sh'china that Shim'on HaTzadik perceived as a man ("ומשני דשמא שכינה היתה"). See also the version found in Tosafos HaRosh (Yoma 39b, "כבוד הקב"ה היה"), Tosafos Yeshanim (Yoma 19b, id.), and the Or Zaru'a' (I, K'riyas Sh'ma' §8, "אומר אני כבוד הקב"ה היה"), which give the Yerushalmi's answer that Shim'on HaTzadik perceived the "Glory of HaShem" - not HaShem Himself - as a man. – Fred Aug 01 '16 at 07:21
  • @HodofHod http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/16315. – Fred Aug 01 '16 at 07:23
  • @Matt I take issue with your implication that this answer proves anything at all! It merely expresses the personal sentiments of an unknown person and his belief that that is the belief of Judaism. – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 14:01
  • "No, no, no. Judaism makes clear that G-d has no physical form, nor does (nor can) He ever take one on." That is a bold lie. Judaism includes also Rishonim such as R. Moshe Taku, and Rashi who believed in a corporeal G-d. It is wrong to portray that there weren't great sages in Judaism who believed that G-d could take on a physical form. – yechezkel Oct 17 '16 at 18:30
  • @yechezkel Even quasi-corporealists like R' Moshe Taku were quite rare (although opponents of the Franco-German rabbis sometimes characterized them as "magshimim", such as R' Sh'mu'el ben Mord'chai of Marseilles). And although many people in recent years have tried to argue that Rashi was a corporealist, their arguments are flawed, and in fact there is ample evidence to the contrary. See, for example, discussion in No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist by R' Saul Zucker and Chapter 7 of The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz by Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogel. – Fred Feb 24 '20 at 23:42
17

This is one of the "perplexing" topics that the Rambam addresses in his "Guide of the Perplexed". While the examples you give are of Angels (see Shalom's answer), a cursory glance of the Bible, could make it seem like there is reason to wonder whether God can be corporeal, since the Torah does refer to God with "physical" attributes like hand, finger, and back, as well as physical actions like standing and sitting.

However, in Judaism we don't hold to a literal interpretation of the Torah, since Hebrew words are frequently equivocal, or have multiple meanings, and when analyzed, they reveal deeper meanings of the text. For instance, the word standing could literally mean a physical body standing-up or it can metaphorically mean everlasting (standing for eternity).

The Rambam explains how every one of the "physical" characteristics, as they relate to God, are equivocal terms like 'standing', and he brings many other passages as proof that the words are used in those other metaphorical and non-physical ways.

The Rambam also explains that the Torah passage "Hear, O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is One" has a deep meaning that expresses God's incorporeality.

For something to exist physically, it necessarily follows that there can be two or more of it (i.e. two apples, three quarks, a trillion stars). By saying God is one, we are denying that there can be any multiplicity of God, meaning he can't be physically manifested. As soon as God would take physical form, it would be possible for him to be two or more, but since he is completely non-corporeal, we say he is "One".

Isaac Moses
  • 48,026
  • 13
  • 119
  • 333
zaq
  • 8,864
  • 30
  • 65
6

Shalom’s answer is pretty clear, but in case anyone needs more evidence, here are two unambiguous passages from common parts of the liturgy that make clear that Hashem is not corporeal and has no body, and that all descriptions of Hashem in those terms are allegorical.

From Yigdal, sung at the beginnings and ends of many services (ArtScroll translation):

.אֵין לוֹ דְּמוּת הַגּוּף וְאֵינוֹ גוּף. לֹא נַעֲרוֹךְ אֵלָיו קְדֻשָּתוֹ
He has no semblance of a body nor is He corporeal; nor has His holiness any comparison.

And from Shir ha’Kavod, which is sung at the end of morning services on Shabbat and festivals (ArtScroll translation):

.אֲדַמְּךָ אֲכַנְּךָ וְלֹא יְדַעְתִּֿיךָ ,אֲסַפְּרָח כְבוֹדְךָ וְלֹא רְאִיתִיךָ
I shall relate Your glory, though I see You not; I shall allegorize You, I shall describe You, though I know You not.

.בְּיַד נְבִיאֶֿיךָ בְּסוֹד עֲבָדֶֿיךָ, דִּמִּֿיתָ הֲדַר כְּבוֹד הוֹדֶֿךָ
Through the hand of Your prophets, through the counsel of Your servants; You allegorized the splendrous glory of Your power.

…

.דִּמוּ אוֹתְךָ וְלֹא כפִי יֶשְךָ, וַיְשַׁווּךָ לְפִי מַעֲשֶׂיךָ
They allegorized You, but not according to Your reality, and they portrayed You according to Your deeds.

.הִמְשִׁילוּךָ בְּרֹב חֶזְיוֹנוֹת, הִנְּךָ אֶחָד בְּכָל דִּמְיוֹנוֹת
They symbolized You in many varied visions; yet You are a Unity containing all the allegories.

Shir ha’Kavod then goes on to describe Hashem in many of these beautiful, embodied allegories, having made clear that they’re just allegories that only share a glimpse of Him.

Jon Mitchell
  • 1,507
  • 10
  • 19
  • 1
    Related:http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/21732/anim-zemiros-is-highly-anthropomorphic-how-come-we-sing-it-in-public – Isaac Moses Oct 30 '14 at 00:31
6

No.

To add to Shalom's answer, the word Elohim is not only used to mean G-d. It can also mean gods, angels, or even men. It is used to mean any source or seat of power, be it Divine, otherwise heavenly or spiritual, or governmental.

This is not a conclusive, or even well-written article, but see here for one example: Elohim (Wikipedia).

Ken Graham
  • 583
  • 1
  • 6
  • 13
Seth J
  • 41,606
  • 7
  • 85
  • 245
  • Thanks. This is a big thing for me. While the word elohim does not always mean God, christians always translate that as God. Go figure. – user4951 Sep 30 '11 at 06:14
  • While it maybe true that Elohim could mean angels, etc. For some reason Jewish bible translation translate El and Elohim as God when God takes anthropomorphic characteristic. See http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0106.htm I wonder why. Mechon mamre could translate that as sons of power. Yet it translate that as sons of God. – user4951 Nov 12 '11 at 08:20
  • @JimThio There is a tradition what Elokim means in each place (part of the tradition might be lost) – hazoriz Oct 30 '14 at 00:43
2

During the early middle ages, there were certainly plenty of Jews in Europe who believed that Gd could be corporeal (though not incarnate... bit of a difference there) However, many Rabbis of the era went to great lengths to dispel anybody of that notion.

There are three historical points of interest regarding Gd having a body.

  1. The Temple in Jerusalem and the Mishkan had an architecture which was very similar to other temples in the area and era. However, there are two glaring differences when comparing the temple sites:
    • Many pagan temple sites have large thrones or marked footprints of where their deity would walk, stand, or sit. The Jewish temple has no throne room or similar structures.
    • The 'Holy of Holies" where Gd is described as residing, is the smallest space in the temple, not the biggest (as it is with other cultures)

  2. There is a lot of Jewish artwork depicting angels and other heavenly beings, but no pictures of Gd. Not even lights through the clouds like with Christian artwork. (There is one debatable exception about two hands in one mosaic at the splitting of the sea, but it isn't clear who's hand with tefillin they are supposed to be).

  3. Textual depictions of things which belong to Gd which might imply a corporeal body often have contradictory sizes. Meaning Gd is depicted as being both very very tiny and very very large. From "playthings" to footstools, voices, hands etc. There is no mental image which can be pieced together from all the different metaphors.

These various traits imply that Judaism always recognised that Gd has no body and would never use one.

avi
  • 18,985
  • 1
  • 52
  • 81
  • 3
    It looks like you started writing a list of three historical points of interest and broke off. – Isaac Moses Aug 01 '11 at 20:26
  • 1
    that I did, I'll have to see what I was writing and fix it later – avi Aug 02 '11 at 05:28
  • 1
    avi, good start to these ideas... – Adam Mosheh Mar 22 '12 at 02:32
  • would really love to hear more of your thoughts on this! – Baby Seal Apr 23 '14 at 15:17
  • 1
    I'm a little late to the discussion about this answer....but you might want to get around to finishing that list! [ that is, if you remember the items on that list....I probably wouldn't, personally :) ] – MTL Oct 30 '14 at 04:27
  • Nice answer (or nice start of an answer?), but I'd probably change there were certainly plenty of Jews in Europe who believed that Gd could be corporeal to "there were certainly some Jews in Europe...." – Fred Aug 01 '16 at 06:40
  • @Fred I see no reason to downplay what appears to be clear. There was relatively little open opposition to some degree of corporeality among Ashkenazim, and a whole lot of open expressions of it. As unpalatable as it seems to us, unless we wish to bury our heads in the sand, we can recognize that גדולים וטובים ממנו were corporalists, and move on. – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 13:05
-7

Well, the Lubavitcher Rebbe famously (controversially?) spoke of this topic in a talk on the last day of Pesach 5710 and said "And thus there is no place for the objection regarding [praying to] an intermediary -- since he [the Previous Rebbe] is the essence and substance [of God] himself, that God had placed himself in a body"

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14925&st=&pgnum=235

Now, I've heard from some (not all) Lubavitchers that this is not meant to be understood literally, but in any case there is certainly precedent by a major Torah scholar for at least describing God incarnated in a body.

The rest of the paragraph from which that line is quoted says:

"Just as 'Israel, Torah, and God are all one', that is to say, not only that Israel is connected to Torah and Torah to God, rather they are 'one' literally, so too is the connection between the Hasidim and the Rebbe -- it's not like two separate things, rather they are made 'all one' literally. And the Rebbe is not an 'interrupting intermediary' rather he is a 'connecting intermediary'. And with regard to the Hasid, he and the Rebbe and God are all one. I haven't seen this said explicitly in the teachings of Hasidut, but it is the 'feeling' of those teachings, and whoever wants to feel this, let him feel it, and whoever doesn't, I don't want to argue with him -- he'll have what he has. And thus there is no place for the objection regarding [praying to] an intermediary -- since he [the Previous Rebbe] is the essence and substance [of God] himself, that God had placed himself in a body."

Curiouser
  • 7,901
  • 2
  • 35
  • 45
  • 1
    Two down votes without a reason? I notice this is becoming a real trend on this site. – Curiouser Aug 01 '11 at 15:09
  • 6
    What you're suggesting - that the Rebbe considered himself an incarnation of God - is outrageous-sounding. Could you possibly provide some context for the statement you're quoting for those of us (probably a majority) who don't read Yiddish? – Isaac Moses Aug 01 '11 at 15:21
  • 2
    No, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was referring to his father in law, the Previous Rebbe, whom he referred to as the Rebbe. But he certainly felt that the Previous Rebbe was an embodiment of God, and he actually used those words to describe it. So I'm not sure why your opinion that it seems "outrageous" matters? Now some Lubavitchers have explained this esoterically, but I have met plenty who take it literally. It seems rather presumptuous of you to decide what is outrageous for a Torah sage of the level of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to say. – Curiouser Aug 01 '11 at 15:31
  • 5
    I said that it's "outrageous-sounding," which I think most people would agree with, not that it's outrageous. I asked for context to help people who might be astonished by this claim understand it in context. Such an extraordinary-sounding claim is difficult to accept unquestioningly based on a single sentence translated from a document that I can't read. Pointing to secondary sources that discuss this trend in the Rebbe's writing would also be useful. – Isaac Moses Aug 01 '11 at 15:38
  • 1
    I added more context for you, which is a defense of why praying via a Rebbe is not a problem of praying to intermediaries -- hopefully this helps. But I am still astounded at how common these un-explained downvotes are. What ever happened to the decency of asking for clarification first? How is the site supposed to produce improved answers if everyone behaves so badly? – Curiouser Aug 01 '11 at 15:44
  • 9
    SE doctrine is apparently that commentless voting is there by design and doesn't necessarily constitute bad behavior. – Isaac Moses Aug 01 '11 at 15:48
  • 2
    The "accepted answer" there is "If you see misinformation, vote it down. Add comments indicating what, specifically, is wrong." That seems to me quite reasonable and useful. Now that you took the time to explain your objection, I improved the answer. Presumably, I could have improved the answer more if the other downvoter had the courtesy you showed by responding to my plea for explanations. – Curiouser Aug 01 '11 at 15:58
  • 3
    The flowery language CLEARLY WAS NOT INTENDED LITERALLY. When in his father-in-law's presence, Rabbi MM Schneurson would not lean on Seder night; after his father-in-law died, he did. All the talk about "he's with us", "he's connected to G-d", etc. is nice, but he was another flesh-and-blood human being who was no longer alive. – Shalom Aug 01 '11 at 16:18
  • 7
    Not only that, but reading the very next line in that sicha easily disposes of any notion of this referring to an incarnation of G-d, ח"ו. He continues: וע"ד מאמר הזהר מאן פני האדון דא רשב"י אדער ווי בעת השליחות איז אפי' מלאך נקרא בשם הוי' אדער ווי משה רבינו האט געזאגט ונתתי עשב - "similar to how the Zohar calls Rashbi as 'the face of G-d," or how even an angel is called by G-d's name when on a mission, or how Moshe says [in first person] 'I will give grass..." [because "the Shechinah is speaking from his throat"]." – Alex Aug 01 '11 at 18:09
  • 10
    In short, then, the Rebbe is not saying anything about "incarnations"; that is a deliberate falsification by those who have it in for Chabad (or for Chassidus generally) for less-than-pure motives. – Alex Aug 01 '11 at 18:10
  • 3
    I happen to be a fan of Chabad and have no negative agenda. But I also recognize that many Chabadnikim whom I know understand that reference literally, that God operates the world through the Rebbe and is embodied in the Rebbe. They have told me explicitly it is appropriate to pray to both the Rebbe and to God. I know this makes some people feel uncomfortable, but I remain open-minded about a significant group of Torah observant Jews (Chabad) who believe this and I try not to judge their beliefs. – Curiouser Aug 02 '11 at 13:22
  • 2
    I don't think it's appropriate to "name names" on a forum like this, but I can attest that dozens of mainstream American Chabad shluchim in my state believe that God is/was incarnated in the Rebbe; since they remain Torah observant Jews I don't see any reason to write them out of Judaism or to belittle their beliefs, for which they have their sources, not least of which is the source I cited. – Curiouser Aug 02 '11 at 13:25
  • 1
    @Curiouser, since you don't even say (in your profile, or anywhere) what state you're in, I have no way of evaluating the truthfulness of your claim. (הרוצה.... ירחיק עדותו.) But I highly doubt it. Yes, if you ask a shliach (or any Lubavitcher), "Is the Rebbe עצמות ומהות אין א גוף?" then the answer will be yes, based on the sicha you quoted. But if you probe and ask what that means - honestly, not לקנתר - then the answer will no more be that we should "daven to the Rebbe" ח"ו than that we should daven to Moshe Rabbeinu. – Alex Aug 02 '11 at 13:50
  • 2
    @Alex: The state is California. A number of shluchim have told me that it is permissible to say ברשות אדוננו מורינו ורבינו מלך המשיח לעולם ועד וברשות הקב’'ה before making any beracha. And they believe you can daven directly to the Rebbe for things, not even merely as an intermediary. And they are learned and God-fearing Jews of good reputation here. So I for one am not prepared to castigate them for their beliefs so long as they maintain mitzvah observance. – Curiouser Aug 02 '11 at 19:46
  • 4
    @Curiouser: any berachah? I rather doubt that; even the fixed formula לשם יחוד, which many other chassidim say before every mitzvah, is in Chabad minhag said only before ברוך שאמר. Anyway, as I'm sure a moment's thought will make clear, asking רשות is not the same thing as worship; otherwise, for example, our Sephardic brethren would ח"ו be guilty of shituf for saying ברשות מלכא עלאה קדישא וברשות מורי ורבותי וברשותכם in zimmun. Be that as it may, if perhaps there are some shluchim who hold such mistaken views, it is ridiculous to drag the Rebbe into it when he clearly said no such thing. – Alex Aug 02 '11 at 20:07
  • 1
    @Curiouser What does it mean, "Israel, Torah, and God are all one" I thought God is not divisible and that's like the main doctrine that differentiate judaism from christianity? – user4951 Oct 01 '11 at 07:02
  • 4
    Motion to migrate to Christianity.SE – Double AA Feb 21 '12 at 00:12
  • 1
    The Zohar states that a Jew has inside of him a piece of Hashem LITERALLY. The Zohar also says that a Torah Sage has the Shechinah dwelling in him Literally. The Alter Rebbe's Maamar in Likutei Torah Parshas Kedoshim "Hadarta Pnei Zaken" discusses this idea. I agree that such an idea is foreign but the truth is that a tzadik is so connected to Hashem that he actually brings and reveals G-dliness in the world in everything he does to the level that Hashem is actually manifesting in the world through him. –  Mar 12 '12 at 19:07
  • 2
    None of the Sages from Avrahahm to the Rishonim have a problem with this. Only in this bitter Galus is such an idea that G-d is actually in this world and that a Tzaddik who lives the Torah to such a level that he brings G-d into world through living is something that isn't Jewish. The Zohar says Hashem and the Torah are one and when you unite and engrave the Torah on your heart you make yourself one with Hashem. Hashem dwells in you. –  Mar 12 '12 at 19:10
  • 1
    Was the Lubavitcher Rebbe a tzadik gamur? – Adam Mosheh Mar 22 '12 at 02:40
  • To the degree that you're accurately portraying the view of some percentage of Lubavitchers, this doesn't show that it's a Jewishly acceptable view. On the contrary, it shows that those Lubavitchers who view the Rebbe's statement this way (e.g. that you can pray to the Rebbe, that the Rebbe is a sui generis manifestation of God, etc.) are heretics (whatever percentage of Lubavitchers this may be). – Fred Aug 01 '16 at 06:28
  • @Alex How does the next line prove anything? The interpretation of the next line follows the interpretation of the previous line. If one understands the first line to be idolatrous, there is nothing in the second line to dispel that nothing. Its not like מאן פני האדון ה' דא רשב"י is such a powerful expression of the obvious distinction between man and God. Incidentally, this is one of the most famous passages of the Zohar, that even fans of Kabbalah in general, and Zohar in particular, such as R. Yaakov Emden, conceded was an idolatrous interpolation. – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 12:49
  • @Fred Well one needs to have some reference point; one can condemn the extreme Lubavitchers, but only in reference to a particular text. Similarly, one can interpret texts in light of the popular beliefs among Jews. There are certainly a variety of views (most of which would be considered heretical according to Rambam) that can (and indeed historically have been) supported on the basis of the texts of Tanakh, Hazal, later writers, popular beliefs, and philosophic notions. – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 12:57
  • @Fred Accordingly, one needs to specify one's reference point in order for a statement like "those Lubavitchers are heretics" to be meaningful. Furthermore, as a major representative of Judaism (legitimately or not), R. Schneerson's view seems worth presenting, and its different interpretations considered. It is true that on a Maimonides stack exchange this would be considered Christian, but so would the Zohar that he quotes, and many other passages in Zohar, and in mysticism. It does not seem appropriate then to simply delegitimize the presented view, shocking or not; at least without – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 13:01
  • @Fred some clear reference point. – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 13:01
  • @DoubleAA Will you also move all other anti-rationalist Christian influenced literature over to Christianity.SE? That wouldn't leave too much here. We would be left with a whole lot of Rambam, and a lot of Zohar and the like would be off topic. – mevaqesh Aug 01 '16 at 13:03
  • @mevaqesh Zohar and Christianity are similar in some ways due to the Greek ideas they have both integrated. That doesn't mean that Zohar is christian-influenced. – Rabbi Kaii Sep 10 '23 at 19:43