CP
You write "Which of my actions or words do you feel are indicative of sinah...baseless or otherwise?" The remark doesn't require an answer, because it is obvious. Nevertheless, I will respond directly. Your website and book comes to one conclusion: That Chabad be considered guilty until proven inoccent of minus, that their Rabbonim, shochtim, teachers etc. be boycotted unless they can prove that they don't accept the beliefs you question. If publicizing through a website and a printed book that an entire kehillah kedosha of Yidden ken yirbu are minim and posul etc. is not considered Sinas Chinam, I don't know what is.

IC
If I would publish a nearly identical site that focuses on Jews for Jesus and seeks to protect unsuspecting Jews from their flawed ideology, would you consider that sinas chinam? I suspect not. So why can't you accept the possibility that I genuinely feel that Chabad theology is equally flawed and Jews are equally at risk and that I'm only trying to protect them (you don't have to agree, just to accept the possibility)? Similarly, must I assume that every Jews for Jesus member is a Torah observant and believing Jew and trust his shechita or am I allowed (even required) to take mountains of circumstantial evidence into account? The comparison may be unpleasant, but it is illustrative.

[CP here responds to a reference to Devarim 5; 5 from which his Rebbe had sought to deduce the permissibility of someone "betten" his rebbe. CP begins be quoting from one of the transcripts we had sent him]

CP
"This was clearly a one-way transmission from Hashem, through Moshe, to the Jews. But there was no return communication". The Torah says clearly "VaYaged Moshe es divrei ha'am el Hashem".

IC
That's entirely irrelevant. Your Rebbe invoked Dev. 5; 5 as support for the universal concept of a rebbe as conduit from Jews to HaShem. In fact, the posuk only discusses the flow of communication downwards from HaShem and only in that one case. The posuk you now quote has nothing at all to do with what your Rebbe was trying to prove: it only tells us that we may speak to Hashem (something I do every day) and that one person may speak on behalf of others (something else I do every day). Hardly a chiddush. It does, however, says nothing about any special status enjoyed by any rebbe.

[CP again quotes from a transcript and comments]
CP
"There is ... a general assumption I make concerning the use of any proof text: it's not enough that it might be possible to read a possuk etc. a particular way ... it must fit the text's simplest an most straightforward reading". On the contrary: nobody is trying to convince you of the truth of Chabad chassidus. You are the one trying to discredit them. So unless you can disprove the proof, it remains valid. (This is logic used in Gemara all the time.) HaMotzi mechavero alav haraya.

IC
Technically, I suppose, you're correct and I won't belabor the point. But as I've written elsewhere, if Lubavitchers were to remain quietly living their lives within their communities, I would say nothing on the subject. As, however, it's their outspoken goal to convert all Jews to Toras Chabad and as they're so actively involved in kashrus and other fields that directly affect both myself and my community, I am obligated to present my views. In that context, I use the voice of a nita'an.

CP [again quoting and commenting]
"The Rebbe's question is "how can you "betten" a Rebbe in a way that the Rebbe doesn't become a memutza (melitz)." You've correctly understood the question. Common sense dictates that the answer can't be that a Rebbe is a Memutza! If the Rebbe wanted to explain how a person can ask by a Rebbe al pi Torah, why would he give an answer that contradicts Torah?!

IC
Excellent question. I await your answer.
CP
"For someone to be aware of conversations and events beyond his natural hearing requires that he has infinite knowledge". Cite a source for this assumption.

IC
How else could any mekushar anywhere in the world assume that his Rebbe hears his thoughts and words? Still, if you could provide me with an alternate model to explain the possibilty, I'll certainly give it a good hearing.

CP (quoting and commenting)
"I sincerely apologize for using [the term avoda zara]. I know it will cause you pain and that's not my intention". It seems to me that the problem is your lack of intention. You do things without considering the implications or consequences of your actions. You have no compunctions about using such a strong term about fellow Jews, despite the fact that it will cause them pain, and worse yet, may even affect their reputation, parnassah etc. Chassid shoteh mevalei olam.

IC
I understood that we were going to stick to concepts. If you disprove my thesis, and all these arguments become superfluous. If I confirm it, then all my actions are fully justified.

CP
" I .. feel that the [website] content is presented in a way that is as respectful as possible, given the intensity of the debate". Va'yefatuhu befihem, ubilshonam yechazvu lo; velibam lo nachon imo... Your lack of respect is evident by the very existence of the website and book. Did you consider the ramifications of what you've done? If you prove wrong, will you take back everything you said? Will you even be able to? How can you indict an entire community first, and only later debate the issue? The mitzvah of Hocheach tochiach es amisecha is qualified by velo sisa alav chet. And even leshitascha, what exactly is respectful about republishing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - excuse me - Kuntras HaEmes, a 'Pashkvill' of the highest order?!

IC
This is far, far off topic and a complete waste of time. Again: the propriety of my site hangs directly of its truth. Disprove it, and I'll happily pull the plug. Please: let's get back to ideas (I didn't send you these debates - which all long predated the existense of this web site, by the way - to rehash these socio-political issues, but to fill you in on the theological ground I've already covered).

CP
"We have to work to understand which meaning of betten the sicha most likely meant (and, more importantly, which meaning is most likely understood by the author's (sic) chassidim)". How chassidim "most likely" understand the sicha is certainly not important. Don't assume.... Hevei dan es kol adam lekaf zechus.

IC
There's nothing more important. Because if a Chabad shochet understands "betten a rebbe" literally, I want nothing to do with his meat. As you'll no doubt know from your studies of Sefer Chofetz Chaim, one must only be dan l'chaf zechus for tzadikim or bainonim, but someone who has demonstrated a lack of concern in an area of halacha, is out of that category. Believers in atzmus theology, according to my way of seeing things, lack this protection (at least in this particular area).

CP
" I never understood brocha that way...rather, I always saw it as a tefilla..." Cite a source for this meaning. What is the difference between bracha and tefilla?

IC
For our purposes, I don't believe there is a difference. According to Rav S.R. Hirsch, if you want a sophisticated analysis of the two activities, "bracha" is a human being's offering a gift to Hashem - the only gift that's his to offer: that of his renewed loyalty and dedication. Tefila, according to R' Hirsch, is from the same source as "pelilus" - that is, we absorb the thoughts and philosophies of the text of the siddur and thereby crystalize in our hearts and minds our feelings for Torah and our obligations to serve God better. Neither involves men acting as surrogate gods.

CP
What is so special about birkas kohanim?

IC
Surely you'll agree that some people's tefilos are more meskabel than others. Whatever HaShem's criteria are for deciding, He gives kohanim extra attention.
CP
What did Hashem mean when he told Avraham "habrachos nesunos lach"?

IC
What's the difference what HaShem had in mind? What it most certainly doesn't mean, is that anyone could betten Avraham - and certainly not after his death. So the source (and the subsequent ones you offer) are off topic.

CP
"So why does the Rebbe write that he hasn't seen such an idea in any of the chassidishe seforim?" If you read the sicha carefully, you'll see that for the concept of "Atmus Umahus vi er hat zich areingeshtelt in a guf gashmi" the Rebbe cites several examples from Kabalah, Gemara and Chassidus. The "hergesh" the Rebbe was referring to was to his previous statement that "er, der rebbe un der aibershter zeinen ein zach".

IC
That doesn't flow well with the structure of the sicha at all. But it's a very small point in any case.

CP
It isn't brought down anywhere in Chassidus that the connection of a chassid to his Rebbe is ad kedei kach. Also, the Rebbe didn't say the issue isn't discussed in Chassidishe seforim; he said in Chassidus, i.e. Chabad. The seforim of other chassidus'n contain many extremely provocative statements about tzaddikim. (I am not familiar with them, but I know that Avraham B. Pevzner quotes extensively in his book "Al HaTzadikim".) The Rebbe was concerned with what Chassidus Chabad says about the topic, because, regardless of other shitos, our shita and guidance as far as our relationship to the Rebbe is guided by Chassidus Chabad.

IC
Regardless. "er, der rebbe un der aibershter zeinen ein zach" is a pretty shocking statement that I, obviously, consider forbidden. So you haven't gained much with this point (unless you demonstrate that it's acceptable in Torah thinking).

CP
"The reference to Moshe Rabbeinu, if applied to any other human being, is most likely a negation of the Rambam's 7th Ikar. That itself is heresy". That's an assumption again. The Rambam clearly lists four differences between Moshe's prophecy and that of other prophets. Shechina Medaberes Mitoch Gerono isn't one of them.

IC
That may be true (although you'd have trouble /proving/ that "medaberes" wasn't a quality that is unique to the nevuah of Moshe). However, my correspondent's comparison and accompanying assumption that your Rebbe's "nevuah" was even on that level does flirt with a negation of the seventh principle. As, by the way, do the many statements of your Rebbe himself, when he calls both his shver and himself "Moshe sh'b'dor".

CP
At any rate, the discussion was not about the prophecy of a Rebbe vs. the prophecy of Moshe. It was about "hasra'as haShechinah", and the proof was that it's possible to use this concept about human beings as evidenced by Moshe.

IC
But, as I've written, there is simply no comparison to be made between Devarim 5; 5 and "upward" communication.
CP
"The Nefesh Hachaim states ..." Assuming that there is any disagreement between Nefesh Hachaim and Chassidus Chabad (I have never personally learned Nefesh Hachaim), you can't disprove chassidus by quoting Nefesh Hachaim. They're allowed to disagree without making each other heretics.

IC
It's more than just the Nefesh Hachaim. R' Chaim quotes Ariz"l, Rokeach and others in solid support of his point. This, and the sheer power of his sevaros elevate this to something far more authoritative than R' Chaim's personal shita. You can certainly raise Tanya as a dissenting voice and I can't complain. But, at the same time, you surely can't object when I, relying on such authority, write that the idea is wrong and fearfully dangerous.
CP
"I do not accept that G-d's atzmus permeates this world..". By all means, don't. _Nobody is trying to force you._ Just acknowledge the vast chasm between what you don't accept and heresy.

IC
I don't think that the atzmus idea itself is minus. It's believing that you can apply it to the practical halachic world by treating your Rebbe like atzmus that is surely minus.

CP
"You can't criticize me for rejecting a popular theology based on atzmus". I think you are unwittingly subscribing to a double standard. You feel it's wrong to criticize you for your views, but you are doing _just that_ to Chabad. The criticism is not for the _rejection_ of Chabad. It's for _delegitimizing an entire derech_ based on your humble opinion.

IC
I've dealt with this above.

CP "I'm well aware of Rabbi Pevzner's book". Yet you continue to slander an entire edah kedosha and holy tzadikkim. Have you _read_ the book? Can you disprove it?

IC
No. And I have no intention of reading it. Believe me, I've spent far more than sufficient time reading Chabad literature. I've attached a chapter from the book that deals specifically with a number of published defences of atzmus theology. You would be hard-pressed to say that I haven't given this matter significant attention.

CP
"The Zohar is clearly allowing nothing more than speaking to the dead beside their graves"./* Cite a source that explains the Zohar this way. The Zohar is asking why visiting the graves of tzadikim isn't "doresh el hameisim". I don't see any reason to assume that it's excluding other places. Is a person only transgressing doresh el hameisim at the gravesite?!

IC
My correspondent brought this Zohar (which he found on the web in an English translation of a sicha) as evidence that a dead tzadik can hear everything and answer for our needs. I replied that the Zohar suggests nothing of the sort. You can't read more into it than is actually there: the Zohar, indeed, wonders about "doresh el hameisim", but only in the context of our visiting their kevorim. deducing from there that a dead tzadik knows everying and can provide for people's secret needs is, er, disingenuous. Gesher Hachaim also, by the way, writes that the Zohar is obviously only recommending asking the tzadik to daven for you to HaShem...but not, chas v'shalom, to provide anything himself (chelek 2, page 211)! You will also find in Gesher Hachaim a lengthy discussion of the relationship between the vicinity of the kever and the consciousness of a tzadik. You might also like to see the Gemara Shabbos 152b (at the bottom) for details on the limitations of a dead tzadik's awareness of this world.

CP
"I'm sorry. If a Rebbe is aware of all thoughts and words....." This paragraph shows a lack of comprehension in the entire topic of how and what a tzaddik knows. I don't profess to know, but I'm not spouting theories on things I don't understand either. The entire statement makes a few very broad assumptions that I can't follow or accept at all.

IC
I can't criticize you for being unsure (especially since they play such a central role in your movement's literature), but these things are perfectly obvious to me. With regards,

CP
I will now address the file you call "Dialogue".
"It's important to know how deeply entrenched within Chabad society is the practice of davening to the Rebbe". Really?! The only place I've ever heard of such a practice are from detractors, never in Lubavitch.

IC
That's only because you don't consider Chabad hiskashrus "davening". However, let's be more specific: your Rebbe is on the record encouraging his chassidim to approach him (and his dead shver) with their needs; associating himself with the essence of God in the process (as justification for an act that, in his own terminology, smacks of minus). This specific aspect of the rebbe-chassid relationship is commonly referred to as hiskashrus - something universal among Lubavitchers. Add to this the fact that Lubavitchers are famous for their loyalty to every whim and nuance of their rebbe's will, and what other conclusion could an intelligent observer draw than that all Lubavitchers participate. I'd be just as much of an idiot to accept the claim that "no Lubavitchers daven to their rebbe" as I would be to accept that "we don't care who moshiach will be as long as he comes" is the same thing as saying "since the Rebbe died, moshiach will have to come from somewhere else in klal Yisroel". Give me some credit, please...
CP
"According to my mesorah..." How many mesoros are there? And why should yours in particular be accepted? We are dealing with opinions here, not Mesorah.

IC
Klal Yisroel is an amalgum of many mesoros. That's why HaShem gave the Torah to twelve shevatim because there are many ways to serve Him and He wants them all. Now, I don't care if you accept my mesorah. In fact, as you'll note, my writings aren't aimed at Lubavitchers at all (I think trying to convince a Lubavitcher that there's even the smallest chance that their theology is false is a complete waste of time). But, you'll remember, you're the one who initiated this discussion and you're the one who attacked my defense of Torah belief as I (and the many talmidei chochomim with whom I've discussed it) see it. And, you'll also remember, this matter isn't one of opinion, but of halacha: is it or is it not permitted for a Jew (or non-Jew) to "betten" any human being?
CP
"Chabad goes out of its way to teach these things to people with absolutely no backbone in halachah.... Kol bar be rav can see that you are bound to create serious widespread problems of belief. Yet the churbon gains steam." This is simply not true. Bring some kind of evidence that people who study Chassidus with Chabad are having serious problems with belief.

IC
Ariel Sokolovsky and the thousands of Chabad balei teshuva like him (including at least two dozen here in my small community alone). Here's a guy who goes around calling your rebbe "HaShem tzidkainu"! And I can tell you, he's not alone. But according to my perception of things, anyone who betten's his rebbe is having serious problems with his belief.
CP
"If davening to a Rebbe.." Again, the argument only holds water if that's true.

IC
Ok. So address that crucial question.

CP
"But labeling a Jew who subscribes to Sovev Kol Almin....." I never learned Nefesh Hachaim, so I don't know if you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what he wrote there. I accept that it's probable that he disagrees with the Alter Rebbe. But one thing is clear. You do not know or understand at all what Tanya teaches with regard to Achdus Hashem, and are not in a position to have an opinion about them. In the present discussion I can't explain it to you at any length, but if you have specific problems, I'll try to deal with that later on.

IC
That's all besides the point. As you've no doubt noticed, I'm very focused in this and I always come back to one thing: is believing that you can approach a human being with your problems minus and is, therefore, "betten" avoda zara? This halachic question requires no kabbalistic knowledge at all.

CP
"I say that the mitzvos Hatorah are not an illusion.." Neither does Chassidus. But that's because Torah says "Bereishis boro Elokim", not because of our perception. As I said, you don't know much about what Chasidus says, and you interpret what little you know according to your feeble understanding, which brings you to label it Kefira, and to "bashmutz" an entire derech and Kehillah.

IC
Again: if you only taught in your endless "secrets of Jewish mysticism" classes that it was all an illusion, but you left it there and didn't push hiskashrus, I would have said nothing. The problem is in the application.

CP
"Beten a Rebbe is tefilla". Meheichi teisi?! Cite a source. This seems to be the crux of the matter.

IC
You're correct. This is the crux. Now, I've written this dozens of times, but I'll do it again anyway. Your rebbe encouraged his followers to approach him with their problems. He justified it (acknowledging how much that sounded like minus) by saying that a rebbe is atzmus umehus and that, by speaking to a rebbe, you're speaking to God. So, then, since asking things of God is clearly tefila (can you dispute that?), and a rebbe is, in Rabbi Posner's tortured explanation, "one with God", the rebbe was in effect, encouraging that his followers engage in tefilla to (ask of) him. How many more ways can I say it?

CP
"I doubt [I am lochem against the whole inyon of Chasidus, not just Chabad]". You seem to not know that coming to a Rebbe for a bracha ("betten by a tzaddik") is a "minhag Chassidim" beginning from the times of the Baal Shem Tov, and is incidentally emphasized much more amongst the Polish Chassidim than in Chabad.

IC
Coming for a bracha (i.e., asking him to daven for us as I've demonstrated previously) is just fine. Chabad has taken it to a whole different place. And even if you were to find sources in mainstream chassidus expressing the same thought, it wouldn't make it any less minus. There are billions of ovdei avoda zara in the world but it doesn't make it right.
CP
"I feel that certain applications of "atzmus" are gross errors.." Moreover, you feel that it's outright minus. Yet you claim to criticize the Rebbe's words "b'derech kavod and b'derech Torah", whose ways are ways of peace.

IC
I think I've been very restrained. But in any case, b'makom chillul haShem ain cholkin kovod l'rav. Surely you've come across that halacha before.
CP
"You propose that anything a tzaddik does must be assumed to be halachically correct". Not only a tzaddik, but every Jew. It's called being "Dan Lekaf Zechus".

IC
I'm sure you haven't forgotten (since my previous letter) that "dan l'kaf zechus" applies only in certain conditions. Would you like me to point you to the precise paragraph in Sefer Chofetz Chaim? By your logic, we must accept all claims of kashrus in every area from any Jew. Do you eat in the homes of mechalelei shabbos? Do you support and concur with intermarriages? After all, these are Jews whose "every action must be deemed halachically correct"? I think that Torah requires a somewhat more sophisticated approach than that!

CP
The way Gedolim respectfully listen to what their fellow says that sounds questionable is to say "Mitzvah Letaretz", not to immediately condemn their opponent as a kofer.

IC
Immediately?
CP
How much more so should a person who is not as learned or as great a yirei shomayim not assume that the Rebbe would say something contrary to Torah, ch"v. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about the Rebbe knows how central the nuance of a halachah was to his Torah, and how careful he was in Kalah Kachamurah.

IC
Let's get back to the point, please. Is there any way to read this sicha (and the many other sources through which this theology was spread) so that it doesn't come out minus? All other questions will fall away with the answer to this one.
CP
"I've long given up trying to know with clarity who is a tzadik and who is not." Well said. When you know, you'll be able to pass judgment. Meanwhile, Kol Yisrael BeChezkas Kashrus.

IC
Narishkeit. See above.

CP
"I may certainly not base any serious halachic decisions based on these assumptions [that a Jew is b'chezkas kashrus]". Actually, Chezkas Kashrus is a halachic convention. It is used in determining the kashrus of food, witnesses etc. It is not related to infallibility at all, and the whole issue of infallibility should have no place in this discussion. It's a fair assumption that the Rebbe carefully considered statements he made in public, and was ready to be quoted.

IC
See above.

CP
"Logic and halacha decree that it's not my responsibility to interpret, but his to be clear." What's the source for this halacha?

IC
B'chasdei HaShem, I've been zoche to spend a great deal of time in the presence of morei hora'ah and talmidei chochomim. this is a most basic principle of responsible psak: anyone issuing halachic opinions must fold himself in half and in half again to ensure that he's not misunderstood. There should be nothing left to interpret. This is the basic principle on which the entire mishnayos was written.

CP
As to clarity, did you honestly study the sicha?

IC
Yes.

CP
Did you try to understand it in the context of the given maarei mekomos?

IC
Yes.
CP
This also brings us to the issue of terminology. Every society has it's "jargon" that is comprehensible to them, though it may seem unclear to others. In order to properly understand the statements, you must be familiar with the jargon.

IC
Ok. So, again, get to the point and offer some rational and intelligent reading of the sicha that's permitted.

CP "To me that sounds like tefilah". Again, the terminology issue. The interesting thing is, that your entire condemnation of Chabad is based on something you take to mean an akirah of the 5th yesod. And even if all the Lubavitchers in the world come and tell you that that's not what the Rebbe meant and that's not how any Lubavitcher understands it, you'll insist on seeing it only your way, and demonizing the entire Chabad.

IC
All the Lubavitchers in the world can tell me whatever they like. If they don't provide an acceptable way to read their approaches into the words of the sicha itself, they're wasting their time because they're not talking about the sicha.

CP
"It is clear that the Rebbe's statement ascribes omniscience to a human being". 1- How is it clear? Omniscience means to know everything, knowing what a Chassid may have said in another location means knowing a little more than most people.

IC
But how can all Lubavitchers be SURE that he hears them if it's not guaranteed?

CP
2- What Ikar is negated by saying that a tzadik may be omniscient?

IC
That God is infinite. Only an infinite being can know everything and there can not be two infinite beings.

CP
For the record, a tzadik is not a magician. He doesn't use tricks and special powers to divine things etc. Because of his being so connected to Hashem, he is able to use (so to speak) Hashem's powers of knowing or causing miracles etc., not through any separate power ch"v. It is similar to what it says "Gala sodo el avadav haneviim". Whether or not the Rebbe can be considered a prophet is irrelevant. The point is that such a thing may be said without being kefirah. I'm not trying to convince you that the Rebbe was anything the Chassidim say about him. On that we can agree to disagree.

IC
I think this was sufficiently expressed in the "dialogue" file.

CP
"To my assumption that davening to a man implies that that man is omniscient..." Don't assume. Bring a source. Incidentally, the idea of asking a tzadik directly for something is found many times throughout Torah and Talmud. E.g., the people asked Moshe "tna lanu basar";

IC
...And Moshe immediately turned to HaShem for help because he couldn't do anything on his own. Excellent example.

CP
Eliyahu Hanavi was given the three keys of rain, childbirth and revivng the dead, to the point that Achav blamed him for withholding the rain;

IC
What does that have to do with anything? Did that make it mutar for someone to daven to Eliyahu?

CP
Naaman came to Elisha to be cured; Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was asked to pray for sick people on a regular basis.

IC
You bet. So he'd pray to HaShem. But that's not what your rebbe was recommending!

CP
In summation: No Lubavitcher thinks that the Rebbe is G-d, or that you should pray to him, ch"v. That's not what the Rebbe said, nor what he meant. Your problem is based on a subjective reading into the Rebbe's words. If I tried, I could do that with Torah shebiksav and gemara too. The proper response is "mitzvah Leyashev", not "minim ve'apikorsim".

IC
Right. Allow open minus to seep into mainstream Klal Yisroel rather than accept the possibilty that your rabbi made a grand mistake. By your logic the Karaites would have been running the whole show for centuries now (after all, "everything Jews do must be assumed to be correct" and "we mustn't even whisper a hint that perhaps Rabbi X is wrong - that's sinas chinum chas v'shalom").
I'm sorry if I've come across a bit strongly, but these are deeply disturbing problems for me.

[here begins a new cycle of the exchange, referring to a previous dialogue with a well-known Chabad rabbi]
CP
First of all, someone's personal feelings do not represent Chabad's shita. They are individuals, and should not be used as the measuring stick for all Lubavitchers.

IC
That's true. But Rabbi X himself does happen to hold a senior position in a large and central chinuch institution. that does say something about the community that hired him, the parents who sent their kids to him and his graduate students. CP
You may only even bring up the personal feelings of individuals if you have reason to suspect that these feelings are widespread, which you don't. There is no reliable estimate of any sort. It's your assumption. As someone who grew up in Lubavitch, I have a much better idea than you do. And I can tell you Lahadam. As to the individual cases you bring, they don't bear out what you are saying.

IC
The reason I suspect that these feelings are widespread is because the ideology on which they seem to be based was taught by your Rebbe. the individual events are only corroboration.
CP [CP here refers to an autobiographical magazine article in which a Lubavitcher woman describes herself as davening to her (dead) rebbe for help]
"Horizons Magazine". This is a classic example of a mistake due to unfamiliar terminology. There is a well known story in Chabad about R' Mendel Futerfas, who was exiled to Siberia, where he sent a telepathic letter to the Rebbe on his birthday. His wife, who was in England, received a letter from the Rebbe saying "Your pidyon nefesh was received". As she hadn't sent a Pa"n, she didn't understand this reference until her husband was able to leave Russia. It seems that this is what Ms. Lipszyc was doing.

IC
Not even close. The woman said (after your Rebbe had died, by the way) that she knew her rebbe could hear her and help. Not HaShem, but her Rebbe. this isn't fun and games with telepathy, but tefila.

CP
"Ginsberg" I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this statement, as it doesn't mention prayer at all. (You may be refering to the statement that the Rebbe transcends all limitations, which you misconstrue as meaning that the Rebbe is G-d (afl"p). This concept is taken from Tanya, Igeres Hakodesh, Siman 27. Be that as it may, it doesn't prove your point).

IC
Well, "transcends all limitations" does certainly sound like infiniteness. But I was mainly bothered by people "consulting the rebbe about all aspects of their lives." What happened to God? Or, for that matter, with doresh el hameisim?

CP "Charitonov" He doesn't say that the Rebbe is G-d, or that one must pray to the Rebbe. However, I don't know the context of what he was saying, so I can't venture a guess as to what he did mean.

IC
He didn't have to say that the rebbe was God (that wasn't the point I was trying to make). rather, he said that tefila is only possible if it goes through the rebbe. That's a meilitz no matter how you spell it (and this memutza hamechaber business has neither historical nor conceptual underpinnings - it's a completely artificial construct).

CP
"The Rebbe as a prophet." You don't have to believe it, but I don't understand why that makes Chabad into minim.

IC
It doesn't. However, if you were to believe that the rebbe is a prophet of equal or greater power than Moshe, then you are in big trouble (see the 7th yesod of the Rambam). CP "Actually, I believe JC was disqualified because he died". Is that so? Had you been alive back then, would you have believed in him until he died? That sounds very much like heresy to me!

IC
Why? Avoiding historical speculation, how would that belief be worse than Chabad messianism? What did Jesus do wrong? He didn't wash his hands before bread? At least he slept in the succah! I reject Jesus as messiah because he (or his followers) associated himself with God (allowing them to daven to him etc.) and because his death (leaving the world an imperfect place) proved that he hadn't done what Moshiach will do.
CP
"Moshiach from the dead." You don't have to believe it. But it's not kefira.

IC
Ok. But it is pretty silly.

CP
Intermediaries. The Rambam explains that the issur of Avoda Zara is not neccessarily denial of G-d, but may even be (as it was in the beginning, in Dor Enosh) simply paying homage to any power outside of G-d, e.g. stars. Therefore, one who prays to a star, even if only as an intermediary, while believing that the ultimate hashpaah comes from Hashem, is still a min. However, when it comes to Talmidei Chachamim, we find something very interesting: The Torah says that the way to "attach yourself to Hashem" is by attaching yourself to a Talmid Chacham; fear of Hashem includes fear of a Talmid Chacham; and particularly with regards to one's Rebbe, arguing with him, second-guessing him etc. is considered like arguing with Hashem. And with regards to Tefillah in particular, the examples abound of Tzadikim praying for others by their request! E.g., Avimelech was told by Hashem that he would be cured when Avraham would ray for him; Moshe prayed for Pharaoh, Miriam, the Jews by the snakes, etc. etc.; R' Chanina ben Dosa was regularly asked to pray for sick people, and many other examples.
So how do we reconcile this?

IC
There's absolutely nothing to reconcile. All of your "tefila" sources only discuss one human being asking another to daven to HaShem for him. That's something we all agree is permitted and even praiseworthy. Find me a source in Tanach in which someone by-passes Hashem and is betten a human being directly and you've got something to reconcile. But no such source exists.
The only question is whether your explanation is at all helpful in justifying your Rebbe's words in that famous sicha (among other places).
CP
By way of introduction, we find the concept of honor and fear also by the Beis Hamikdosh and parents. The Rambam explains that we don't fear the Mikdash itself, but the One Who commanded us to fear it. In other words, fearing the Mikdash is actually fearing Hashem Himself. So, too, with parents, G-d says "I consider it as if they honored Me". Similarly it will be understood with regards to Talmidei Chachamim: the respecting them is respecting G-d, Whom they represent.
How is this different than stars etc.? Chassidus explains

IC
I doubt that there's any such explanation anywhere in chassidus - outside of your Rebbe's own writings. Don't pin this one on "chassidus."

CP
that there are two types of intermediaries (and they are alike in name only, not in function or any other way at all). There is a memutza hamafsik, and a memutza hamechaber. An example of a memutza hamafsik is the Turgeman who would announce the shiur of the Rav to the people. As his title suggests, he didn't only act as a microphone, but he actually explained and interpreted the words of the Rav so that everyone would be able to understand. So what they were hearing wasn't the Rav's idea straight, but the Turgeman's understanding of the Rav. Similarly, a malach, star, etc. who is enlisted as an intermediary is compared to a minister (a distinct individual) who is empowered by the king, but acts on his own intiative.

IC
You're saying a malach or star acts on its own initiative? That's getting quite close to dualism (best known through Christians and Zoroastrians who believe in opposing forces; darkness and light or god and the devil). In any case, if you haven't noticed, stars are inanimate objects. But I'm afraid I digress, because, again, there is no such distinction made in any halachic literature and, therefore, employing any meilitz of any color or flavor is forbidden.

CP
A memutza hamechaber, however, is like a funnel used to transfer liquid from a very large vessel into a much smaller one. The liquid is unchanged by the funnel, which merely facilitates the transfer. Another example is a hand writing down an idea. The hand doesn't understand or interpret the idea, it simply enables that idea to be transfered as is to the paper. Similarly, a tzadik facilitates the direct connection between ordinary Jews and Hashem. The reason we need this facilitating is understood from the examples, that the two that are being connected are in separate realms, whether quantitatively (liquid), or qualitatively (idea).

IC
You haven't helped your cause with this. Because your only way of explaining why you think your Rebbe is in a "different realm" than normal human beings (and, thus, has access to this flow of spirituality) is that he's atzmus umehus. Or, in English, he's God incarnate (i.e., God's essence is found in the gashmi of his body chas v'shalom). The Rambam is unambiguous about the status of someone who believes that.
CP
The Rebbe was once asked by college students, what the function of a Rebbe is. He answered that electricity is generated by a powerhouse outside the city, and is distributed to all the houses by means of various cables etc. But in order for the lights to actually go on in someone's private house, they have to flip the switch. And his job is to flip that switch. He awakens that innate connection that every Jew has with G-d.

IC
That doesn't read at all into the words of his sicha - you don't have to be God incarnate (chas v'shalom), to flip a switch.
CP
This is the meaning of what the Rebbe said "Atzmus Umahus vi er hat zich areingeshtelt in a guf gashmi". A Rebbe is a memutza hamechaber, and therefore he is not a screen between the chasid and G-d, but rather through him, the chassid is connecting directly with Atzmus, the address for our prayers. The Rebbe, a physical human being, is the conduit for the chassids relationship with Hashem Himself. Veyesh Lehaarich, ve'ein kan mekomo.

IC
Again, the Rambam never said that using someone or something as a "screen between him and God" is forbidden, he said using someone as a meilitz. To even dream that the Rambam, the great rationalist, would consider employing such a soft (not to mention tortured) distinction - and then not even mention it - is, um, overly simplistic.
CP
"Communicating with the dead (except at a kever itself) falls, I should think, into the category of "doresh el hameisim"." Don't think. Find a source. I don't see any logical difference between at the kever or elsewhere.

IC
Look at the Gesher Hachaim I mentioned a couple of times before. He brings all kinds of rishonim and acharonim. See, also, the Bais Yosef to Tur179 ("Ov").
CP
"My Judaism isn't based on stories, but on halachah". Maaseh Rav happens to be the strongest proof of halachah.

IC
The "strongest proof"? That would explain a lot about Chabad halachic observance. Please bring a source.
CP
"Weathermen make predictions ..." Your comparison is completely out of left field. Discuss whether the Rebbe was qualified to be a prophet, based on the Rambam, and leave the weathermen out of it.

IC
Then see the Rambam in his intro to Mishnayos where he speaks quite clearly about the quality of os and mofes a navi would have to produce. You might also like to see his Igeres Taiman where he disqualifies the messianic aspirant in Teiman.
CP
I want to conclude with a little thought. Lehavdil elef alfei havdalos ad ein ketz before I even begin, you've compared weathermen to prophets because they both make predictions, Christianity to Chabad because they both believe that the Messiah will be a ressurected individual, and Jews for J to Chabad because they both missionize and teach people their beliefs. This is a good tactic in rhetoric and polemics, but not in seeking the truth. When seeking the truth, one must judge each thing based on its own merits, not on how similar it may be to something else. After all, Judaism and Christianity are very much the same. Both believe in the Bible, Messiah, Ressurection, Sin, the Devil, a day of rest, have prayer temples, priests etc. etc. What's the difference? Why do we reject Christianity? Because they have priests or prayers? These externalities neither prove nor disprove the validity of a given path. The important question is what are the core differences.

IC
I agree. So if you would clarify for me what, exactly, are the important (not the superficial) differences between a weatherman's predictions and those attributed to your Rebbe; between Christian belief in a messiah who is atmus umehus (or, in their terms, part of the godhead) and has died but will return etc., I would appreciate it.

CP
The matter that requires reconciliation is why is asking a tzadik to daven for you any different than asking a star or malach to daven for you?
IC
Leaving out stars, it's perfectly appropriate to ask a malach to daven for you (at least according to those acharonim who permit it...those who say "barchuni l'shalom" Friday night follow that lenient opinion) and, indeed, is no different from asking a tzadik. My problem is that "betten" in the context if the sicha is clearly far more than just asking a tzadik to daven for you (for reasons I've discussed here and elsewere).
CP
I need to understand in order to properly respond: What exactly does an intermediary do?
IC
That's a bit of a soft spot by me. There is, as far as I know, virtual silence among the poskim on the subject. My understanding has always been the simplest reading of the Rambam (and it's the simplest reading that, all things being equal, always carries the greatest weight in halacha): a human being has HaShem's ear and HaShem's ear is great enough to hear every human being. We don't need anything or anyone to amplify our voices or our hearing. Look at it in the context of the rest of that halacha: there are five types of minim, believing there's no god, there are two, that he has a body etc., are all flaws in our understanding that diminish God's perfection. That, perhaps is the best general definition of minus (any error in belief that sells God short). How does meilitz fit into these others? I believe (and I've discussed this with serious talmidei chochomim) it's because using a meilitz is like saying God can't hear us or respond to us without amplification; in other words, He's not perfect. In that sense, any type of meilitz is wrong.

CP
Oh, and one other thing. I'm a bit surprised at your discounting "maaseh rav", as it is a common convention in Gemara, (Rav avid uvda b'Neharda'ah, Shmuel avid uvda b'Pumbedisa etc.) and you yourself resorted to it as a source for a statement you made.

IC I agree that maaseh rav is a tool that can be used in psak (with many conditions attached). However, it's hardly the "strongest proof of halacha". When an amorah observes his rebbi's conduct and concludes halacha (and the ba'al hagemara gives that observation the full stamp of approval), that has an entirely different quality than apochryphal stories that have been passed down through many generations in an uncontrolled transmission (often at gatherings where alcohal plays more than a passing role).
Maaseh rav works when the rav is known to be in total control of himself, the observer is known to be perfectly objective and sober-minded and the transmission is known to be flawless. And even then there can be problems.

CP
I thought we had an agreement about condecension.

IC
I'm being perfectly serious. I should hope that political correctness hasn't so crippled this discussion that such key distinctions can still be openly discussed. By the way, I just took a look at the 5th yesod of the Rambam's 13 ikkarim in Sanhedrin where he writes that a meilitz is someone who employs (is ovaid) melachim, stars etc., in order to bring him (or "them" - Rambam here uses the plural form to describe both human beings and meilitzim) closer to Him (God). So, in the Rambam's own terminology, a meilitz is forbidden /davka/ when the kavana is chibur! It would be hard to make a convincing argument (regarding shitas Rambam) for the exact opposite. I also thought about your explanation of your Rebbe's distinction and I think that it renders the argument entirely inconclusive: isn't it equally or even more possible to say that a star or a malach is /more/ likely to be a direct conduit from God to people as they have no personalities or free will to get in the way? But a person, who most certainly has personality and free will, would be /more/ likely to change things in the process. And even if you would argue that your Rebbe had no free will or personality (a possibilty I reject in principle and which you would never be able to prove in any case), he would still be /no more/ pure in his transmission than inanimate stars which were seen by their original worshippers as simple conduits for God's influence (see Rambam beg. of Avodah Zara).


* * * * * * * * CP
From our correspondence it has become clear that you are coming from a certain bias, based on the following premises:
1. The Rebbe interpreted the idea of turning to a tzadik for help differently than it had always been interpreted. Quote: "Coming for a bracha (i.e., asking him to daven for us as I've demonstrated previously) is just fine. Chabad has taken it to a whole different place."
2. The Rebbe was (ch"v) a charlatan. Quote: "Maaseh rav works when the rav is known to be in total control of himself..."one must only be dan l'chaf zechus for tzadikim or bainonim, but someone who has demonstrated a lack of concern in an area of halacha, is out of that category. Believers in atzmus theology, according to my way of seeing things, lack this protection."
3. The Rebbe did not really understand many of the concepts he spoke about (thus misusing proofs and quotes). Quote: "there is also the possibility that the sources are simply spurious; that they really aren’t relevant to the issue and were brought in gross error." "He [the Rebbe Menachem Mendel] speaks in lofty terms about the secrets of Torah as though he understands even what is revealed" (from the website).
4. Chabad Chassidim are frivolous about life, Avodas Hashem, Torah etc. Quote: "apocryphal stories that have been passed down through many generations in an uncontrolled transmission (often at gatherings where alcohol plays more than a passing role)." "someone who has demonstrated a lack of concern in an area of halacha" v'ein hadavar tzarich r'aya, shekol hasefer male bazeh.
5. Chabad Chassidim don't learn Torah. You may not have expressed this clearly, but I think it is certainly implicit in the argument that the Rebbe didn't etc.
6. Chabad Chassidim aren't careful about keeping halacha. Quote: "What did Jesus do wrong? He didn't wash his
hands before bread? At least he slept in the succah!" "That would explain a lot about Chabad halachic observance."
Based on those assumptions, there's no room for a discussion. Any amount of debating whether or not Chabad is justified will prove useless if you don't seriously consider the counter arguments. If you are willing to take a serious look at what is being said, you will see that we have basis for our beliefs.

The claims that have been made by you against Chabad are as follows:

1. They believe (based on a sicha) that the Rebbe is (r"l) G-d incarnate.
2. They pray directly to the Rebbe.
3. They do this at the gravesite, which is Doresh el Hameisim.
4. They believe that the Rebbe is a prophet (and equal to or greater than Moshe Rabbeinu)
5. They believe that the Rebbe is Moshiach (even after his petirah).
6. They believe the Rebbe to be omniscient, which contradicts the infinity of Hashem.
7. They believe the Rebbe is omnipotent.
8. They believe that G-d's Essence permeates all existence in a most literal sense.
9. They believe that the Rebbe is like Moshe Rabbeinu.
10. They bind themselves to the Rebbe (hiskashrus).


IC
And if my characterization of what I call “Atzmus theology” is correct, then whether or not I (or, for that matter, you) harbor bias is really of no consequence to our discussion. So let’s get right to the meat.

CP
So let's go through these claims one by one.
Claim #1 This is misrepresented. You keep using the term "God incarnate". It is standard practice in a debate to use Christian terms to disqualify the arguments of the opponent. If it's Christian than it's clear that it's unacceptable. However, "Atzmus uMahus vi er hat zich areingeshtelt in a guf gashmi" doesn't mean that at all, as we'll see.
You’re playing with semantics. The term “incarnate” denotes something possessing or inhabiting a human body. That is, I believe, a perfectly reasonable translation of “areingeshtelt in a guf”. You may translate the words differently, but I am on very solid ground from the perspective of Yiddish vocabulary. The fact that the term is often used to describe some forms of idolatry makes it all that much more useful for clear rhetorical expression.
There is a basic misunderstanding about what the Rebbe was trying to explain in the sicha, which has lead to misconstruing the entire context. What the Rebbe was addressing in the sicha was the question of "How does a Rebbe who is no longer physical understand and relate to our physical issues?" The Rebbe answered that this can be understood by explaining how one can ask of a Tzadik, when this would seem to be a memutza.

IC
Let me make sure I properly understand your current approach. You are suggesting that your Rebbe was trying to explain how such a holy neshama could possibly relate to human concerns. To explain this, he demonstrated that such people are really fully integrated with Atzmus HaShem to the point that, when you speak to such a person, you’re speaking with HaShem (words from the sicha). What this means, I suppose, is that, just like HaShem Himself is concerned with our needs, so too is the body in which He envelopes His essence. And the proof of this is that you are allowed to betten this person just as you would betten HaShem (which you claim is permitted because a rebbe is a memutza hamechaber – a distinction that, according to the sources I’ve presented, doesn’t exist and, according to the Rambam in Perush haMishnayos, is even worse than a mechalek).
But, at the same time, you are also suggesting that “betten” means nothing more than a request of a tzadik to daven to HaShem on our behalf (I assume you take that stand because you acknowledge that attributing anything more significant to “betten” is davening by another name – and forbidden). It would seem to me that, not only is this something that every five year old kid who has ever read Chumash (see Bamidbar 12; 13) knows (and taking the time to explain it would thus represent a waste of ink and effort), but that it runs counter to your Rebbe’s proof: because if he’s nothing more than someone who davens for his fellow Jew, then he’s no longer any more likely to be concerned with or aware of our mundane worries (as, in essence, he hasn’t changed at all, it’s just that he davens). The original question would thus remain unanswered.

CP
In addition, if one feels the others pain to the extent that it becomes his own, he can certainly pray for himself. This, incidentally, is the classic explanation that the Rebbe usually spoke about, in the context of the Rebbe being the Rosh Bnei Yisrael, the head of the Jewish body.There is no question as to why the Rebbe would address a question that's already been answered. It's quite common for different Talmidei Chachamim to address the same question and answer "lfi darkam". That doesn't "prove" that the Rebbe was trying to justify a completely new practice. That is a major stretch.

IC
I believe that the “stretch” is entirely in the other direction but I don’t consider it useful to argue the point in depth as I’ve already expressed my position above.

CP
Now, your chapter "How they respond" is not a very thorough treatment of the arguments of Chabad. You may have given the matter "significant attention" timewise, but certainly not depth-wise. You make the following points:
A) 'The Rebbe explicitly urged his followers to avoid expressing their true opinions on controversial topics so as not to distance Jews from “chassidus”.' You effectively closed off any debate on the topic, because whatever we answer is not what we "really" think. [Agav, you misrepresented what the Rebbe said. It is obvious that it's counter productive to specifically bring up topics that are controversial or difficult for the uninitiated to grasp, and where people may knowingly or unknowingly misconstrue what was said. It is for this reason that the study of Kabala was reserved for yechidei segulah. That's not the same thing as a cover up. But of course, if that's how you want to read it, no one can stop you.]

IC
Who cares if the matter is described as a “cover up” of difficult ideas or as just holding back controversial details. It all amounts to the same thing: I’m unlikely to get a straight answer from a Lubavitcher (and even if a particular Lubavitcher was being open with me, in light of his Rebbe’s instructions, how would I ever know?). I might also comment, that if “the study of kabala was reserved for yechidei segulah” why do you teach it to barely frum Jews who don’t yet know alef-beis? And if everything today has somehow changed (as Chabad professes), so why did your Rebbe want some things restricted?

CP
B) "The footnotes do not help. All they can come up with is statements such as we have seen in past posts that Chazal were referred to with Hashem's name, which as we saw in previous posts, is explained by the Rishonim as meaning that the do Hashem's work, not that they are Hashem." I'll go in to this at length below. (See what I wrote about premises.) Additionally, you focus on the Zohar and Yerushalmi. The Rebbe also mentioned Tanya (Iggeres Hakodesh 25), which quotes a Ramaban (see the Alter Rebbe's explanation there);

IC
I took a look at that passage in Tanya and didn’t notice any direct reference to any Ramban. Could you pass it along please? I think you understand this already, but I’ll mention it anyway: I am not at all convinced that the Tanya is part of our mesorah, I don’t necessarily accept a proof from Tanya as authoritative (nor, by the way, do I necessarily reject it out of hand). This particular chapter is interesting as it is clearly the source for the “areingeshtalt” comment in your Rebbe’s sicha. What isn’t clear is whether your Rebbe extended it far beyond the Alter Rebbe’s intentions by applying “atzmus” to it in addition to shechina. As anyone who knows even the tiniest amount of kabbala knows (and as I’ve written elsewhere), shechina is a temporal manifestation of God’s presence and certainly not His “self” while atzmus is beyond our ken; they’re hardly interchangeable.
It makes no difference where such ideas come from: even if the Rambam himself would have written such a thing, I would still consider it minus (although, of course, that’s entirely a theoretical thought).

CP
C) and Likutei Torah about Moshe saying "Venasati esev". If you would have bothered to look them up, you would see that the whole allegation that the Rebbe was saying that a Rebbe is God incarnate is ridiculous.

IC
I do recall reading that Chabad considers that posuk as a reference to Moshe referring to himself as God (i.e., using the first person to describe what God does). I don’t remember exactly what was claimed so I can’t speak to it directly, but I can say that the Rebbainu Bachya wrote that the “narrator” of the chumash here employs the first person to remove any confusion that “elyonim” or “kochos hamatzmichim” govern in any way the growth of plants (or anything else, for that matter). Rather, it’s all under the direct rule of God.
Does that leave any room for a human being? Would that fit with a belief that God allows free rein to any force?

CP
[In Tanya the Alter Rebbe says "Don't be surprised if a spark of the Shechina is referred to as Shechina; for even a Malach, which is a created being, is called by God's name at the time of its mission..."

IC
Again, I can’t speak to the authenticity of the Tanya, but I can say that, even if it is true that various individuals and forces are called by God’s name, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the propriety of davening to that individual or force! The point proves nothing.

CP
Note, that in the Zohar there was a practical corollary to this "concept": that all "zechorim" need to greet Rashbi. So to in the reference to a Malach being called by Hashem's name, Avraham bowed to the Malach for that reason.

IC
Avraham bowed to the bnei Cheis, but that certainly doesn’t imply he thought they were godly! Hishtachave which is intended as avoda is avoda. Hishtachave which is for simple kovod is simple kovod. Nothing more.

CP
Did Avraham consider the Malach to be God? Of course not. But since it was on a mission from God, it was called by God's name, and was able to speak and do the acts and words of God. About Moshe, the Alter Rebbe explains that it's because Shechina medaberes mitoch gerono, which he was able to achieve through Matan Torah.

IC
You seem to be saying that since Moshe was a shaliach of God (to which no one will argue) one is justified to daven to him and may expect that he can respond by “channeling godly energy” or whatnot (otherwise, why else would you bring this into our discussion?). If that’s what you mean, you’re wrong for all the reasons I’ve discussed here and elsewhere and these sources have nothing to do with your point. If I’ve misunderstood your point, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

CP
"Since Hashem and the Jews were married, so to speak, at that time, which means that there was a complete merging and dissolving in Atzmus Or Ein Sof, to the point that they actually left their bodies. See there at length.]
C) 'there is also the possibility that the sources are simply spurious; that they really aren’t relevant to the issue and were brought in gross error.' Can't argue with that one. I won't respond to the other things you say there, as they are completely based on a misrepresentation of what the Rebbe said. It should be clear that if the sources the Rebbe quoted, as well as the references he made in other places, don't bear out what you're trying to kvetch into it, then that's not what he was saying, v'im davar reik hu - mikem. One other thing: In Al Hatzadikim (which you didn't read) Rabbi Pevzner simply brings many quotations from other seforim with similar content. Of course, that doesn't make a difference, because the Rebbe didn't mean that. But Rabbi Pevzner will be accused of taking those seforim out of context, not you of taking the Rebbe's words out of context. And you still claim to have read and tried to understand the sicha based on the maarei mekomos, yet you have no substantial response to them. As for Rabbi Pozner's "tortured explanation", see Zohar III, 292a, 7b, 260b. And he wasn't saying that the Rebbe's God, but that he wasn't a separation between a Jew and God (as a memutza would be). The Chassid who goes to the Rebbe knows that the answer and hashpa'ah comes from God, not the Rebbe. That's the whole point. Incidentally, the whole negation of using a memutza was because it's avoda zara, as stated clearly in the Rambam. Avoda Zara means attributing power or significance to something other than Hashem. Tzadikim, on the contrary, reveal how "ein od milvado". See Tanya II, ch. 5.

IC
You’ve completely ignored everything I’ve said about “memutza”. Please look again at what I brought from the Rambam’s fifth ikar and my comparison of the five categories of minus from Hilchos Teshuva.

CP
[As already pointed out, you only have to accept a source if it's conclusive; however in order to refute a source you need an airtight case against it. When I brought this up, you sidestepped it and said that we're invading your territory, so we have to prove ourselves. But you never explained why the sources can't possibly mean what is being proposed. The problem is that you've already indicted Chabad, although you haven't yet proved conclusively that our assertions are "outside the parameters of Judaism". ("I've never heard of such a thing" isn't a refutation.)]

IC
I most certainly have provided a case against you simply by reading the Rambam in his most simple, straightforward path. And you haven’t responded at all to that reading. Pretty much all you’ve done is bring internal Chabad sources that may or may not support your Rebbe’s theology, but, as you yourself said at the very beginning of our dialogue, we are going to work with the Rambam and consider him authoritative. I took you at your word.

The Rebbe explains this in the sicha of 12 Tamuz 5711(see attachment). The relationship of Chassidim with a Rebbe and of the Rebbe with Hashem is much more intimate than other Tzadikim. This is alluded to in the Zohar referring to Rashbi as "pnei Ha'adon Havayah". Basically what the Rebbe explains there is that Hashem can use anything as a tool to carry out His will. [Therefore, one person can use all three keys of Chaya, Geshamim and Techiyas Hameisim at once, because it's not their doing, but Hashem directly, through them. It's possible that this is also why a Malach at the time of its shlichus may be called by Hashem's name, since it is Hashem's tool, or in the Torah's expression, "k'garzen beyad hachotzev bo". This is what the difference between a Memutza Hamechaber vs. a Memutza Hamafsik is, in fact, and as I tried to explain to you before. The effect of the memutza hamafsik is attributed to the memutza, hence it is assur to use or believe in; the outcome of the memutza hamechaber is attributed to Hashem, hence it is not b'stira to Achdus Hashem.When I explained this to you before, you misunderstood my analogies because you didn't take what I wrote seriously, so you didn't bother to try to figure it out. A Rebbe is like a funnel or the hand writing an idea.

IC
Again, you seem to be ignoring the Rambam and substituting his psak with outside sevaros.

CP
The hashpa'ah is not his, he only facilitates its transfer to a place that on its own would not be able to receive from the source, due to the disparity in (quantitative or qualitative) size. Hence the example of flicking the switch. As mentioned, in such instances the peulah is not attributed to the facilitator but to the source (the large barrel, the mind or the powerhouse).] >From here it's clear that when the Rebbe says "Atzmus Umahus" he's referring to God, not a human being (which should have been obvious, at any rate.)

IC
Not in the least bit obvious. He’s offering this construction to explain how a chassid “may” betten *his rebbe* – not God. So why should I think that the sentence’s putative subject has just changed? In fact, however, your Rebbe is obviously referring to God – as essentially synonymous with himself!

CP
The Rebbe further explains that the answer the Rebbe gives is Hashem's answer, which He puts in the Rebbe' soul. He connected this with Yechidus being a time of the meeting of Yechidahs of Rebbe and Chassid. The Yechidah is described by the Arizal as a spark of the Creator which unites with a spark of the created (Yechidah). However you explain the passage of calling Rashbi "pnei Ha'adon Havayah", it's obvious that it's not merely because he does God's work (many people do), but because there is a particular relationship that he has with Shem Havayah (Shem Haetzem).

IC
Ok. I’ll explain that Rashbi statement in a perfectly rational way (following the approach of the Da’as Sofrim to Sefer Shmuel). The gemara in Shabbos tells us that David Hamelech wanted God to be referred to as “Elokai David” just as He was referred to as “Elokai Avraham” etc. In other words, when someone would look at Avraham and see his outstanding hanhaga and midos, he would think “imagine how great must be the God Who created this creature!” People would come to say “Let me tell you about God; the One I learned about through knowing Avraham!” David, of course, didn’t pass the test, but it was a possibility that a human being could be so closely associated in the public eye with spiritual greatness that merely meeting him would remind people of God. I would suggest that is exactly what is being said about Rashbi: that his human face reminded people of God just as did Avraham.
Nothing more.

CP
As far as the expression (not the concept) "areingeshtelt in a guf gashmi": a) it is similar to the term used in the Zohar. Although the Zohar doesn't say "in a guf", it's referring to the person of Rashbi, as a physical human being, as "pnei ha'adon Havayah". We are seeing Pnei Ha'adon Havayah when looking at a physical human being.

IC
Not at all. See my above explanation.

CP
b) We find the concept of Hashem placing Himself within limitations as in the Beis Hamikdash, and Golus. In the Beis Hamikdash there is the amazing statement that "tzimtzem shechinaso bein shnei badei aron". We find that Talmidei Chachamim are compared to the Luchos.

IC
What does that have to do with anything?

CP
Golus is a particularly interesting example, because kavayachol Hashem needs to actually be redeemed from Golus.

IC
Homiletics. And irrelevant to our point besides.

CP
Yet that doesn't contradict "ein lo dmus haguf". (Obviously, ein lo dmus haguf is not restricted to the human body or form.) c) Ikar 3 is the negation of any limitation to God, as the Rambam states clearly in Mishneh Torah. However, the same principle requires that Hashem is able to work within limitation as well, as brought down in Avodas Hakodesh by R' Meir ibn Gabbai: "Ein Sof is the Shleimus of everything. If you say He only has ability in unlimitedness and not in limitedness, you are diminishing His shleimus."

IC
I’ve never heard of R’ Meir ibn Gabbai (not that that should take away anything from his credibility, of course). More to the point: from your rendering of the quotation, it sounds like he’s trying to express some positive attribute of God which is far beyond the grasp of any human being. Still more to the point: even if it’s true (whatever it might mean), it doesn’t come close to attributing a body to God the way you do when you say that your Rebbe’s body is “atzmus areingeshtalt”.

CP
The issue of terminology is something that must be dealt with in understanding Maamarei Chazal at any rate. Everything needs to be understood in the context of 1- Who said it, 2- who did they say it to, 3- what did what they said mean to the people they said it to, etc. You disregard the issue entirely. ("So tell me how you can read the sicha ..."). People who are familiar with the ideas taught in Chassidus (Chabad) never had a problem understanding what the Rebbe was saying. [The 'Elokistin' are not the "brains" in Lubavitch...]

IC
Well, my contention has also been all along that, indeed, no Lubavitchers ever had a problem understanding what the Rebbe was saying. Our only disagreement is in what that understanding was.

CP
The main question that can be asked on the sicha is (not how could the Rebbe say such a thing, but) why or how the Rebbe uses such radical terms in expressing the idea.

IC
So now you’re acknowledging that these were radical terms. Previously, you said that your Rebbe was saying nothing more than that one is allowed to ask a tzadik to daven for him – hardly radical.

CP
Perhaps also for this reason he brought the Zohar, to show that it's not unheard of to express oneself that way.

IC
Except that the Zohar doesn’t say anything like that (as above).

That was the point I was trying to make with my comments about your statement "only Hashem does miracles". It is not a contradiction to saying that a Tzadik did a miracle, upashut.
As far as the statement "er mit der Rebbe mit der Aibershter zeinen ein zach", it's an extension of "Yisrael, oraysa veKB"H kula chad", which is based on Zohar 3, 7b and 260b, and other places. Every Jew is/can be one with Hashem. By the Rebbe it's obviously much more actualized.

IC
I would suggest that it’s far more than an extension.

CP
The source for the term "memutza hamechaber" is in Toras Shalom from the Rebbe Rashab. The source of the idea is in many places in Chassidus, notably the maamar of Shavuos 5659. The concept of memutza (by that name or another) is found in the context of the transmission from one world to another, as well as in the difference between Devarim and the other four chumashim, and many other places. What can certainly be proved from Devarim 5,5 is that since it is said about Moshe, it's no longer Kefirah in Ikar 3 to say it about someone else.

IC
I agree that what’s said in Devarim 5; 5 is perfectly acceptable. I only beg you to look again at what I wrote about it above to see that it’s talking about nothing even remotely comparable to our conversation.

CP
Let's agree that if we find a certain level of unity with God by Moshe Rabbeinu, it is no longer Kefirah in the 3rd Ikar to say that about another human being. Whether or not is a kefirah in Nevuas Moshe is another discussion (see below).

IC
Yes, if we find such a level. But we don’t.

CP
Claim #2 This too, is misrepresented, based on a mistaken notion that "the Rebbe wouldn't be answering a question that has already been discussed" (see above). Let's talk about what has been taught regarding going to Tzadikim with your problems.
Although you have a problem with going to the Rebbe

IC
You still seem to misunderstand me. I have no problem with people going to rabbis (or anyone else, for that matter) so that the rabbis should daven for them. Betten, according to my reading of the sicha, is much more than that (and you’re still far from convincing me otherwise).

CP
you say that there is no need to reconcile Avimelech, Miriam, the Jewish People by the snakes, and the sick by R' Chanina ben Dosa, asking a Tzadik to pray for them with the issur of using a memutza. 1. What then is a memutza? The Rambam writes "Similarly, it is not proper to serve them as intermediaries in order that they should bring us closer to God." This the Rambam classifies as part of Avoda Zara, as I wrote to you before. You later agreed that there is a potential problem with asking a Tzadik to daven for you

IC
I agreed to no such thing. This is old material we’re going over again and again. No source anywhere in Judaism would ever question the propriety of asking their fellow man for brachos or tefilos. The Maharal (and others) only question making requests of melachim (or dead people). Please make note of that.

CP
and it depends on your point of view in asking malachim etc. 2. Poskim discuss this question, famously the above-mentioned Chasam Sofer who says that there is a difference between turning to angels, who have no direct connection with the people in need of a prayer, and asking for help from fellow Jews, who are "all one body and one soul, such that when one is unhappy, another one joins him in the same feeling." His conclusion is that "when one prays for another, he should feel for him ... and also feel as if he is sick. Then, since both of them are suffering, it is proper that he enters into the matter." According to his words, it is permitted only to turn for help to one who is so full of empathy that his prayers are in effect about himself and not about a friend.

IC
I looked up that Chasam Sofer (O”C 166) and, while it gave me pause for a moment, it quickly became clear that he’s talking about nothing of the sort. First of all, he’s only quoting the Maharal (and not the Rambam) who holds that requesting melachim to daven to God for you is improper (not forbidden, mind you, but improper – as we, the people of God, should take our petitions directly to God). It’s obvious, therefore, that the “meilitz” he’s referring to has nothing to do with the Rambam’s minus. Otherwise, there would be no quiet discussion of “katnus b’emuna” or “improper” behavior, but “Gevald! Minus!”
In any case, when the Chasam Sofer does turn to the subject of people davening for each other, he simply advises that it will work best if the one who will daven brings himself to share the pain of the petitioner. But here was never even the slightest doubt that it was permitted to ask for brachos etc.

CP
At any rate, we see that there's most definitely an issue that needs reconciliation. And there are various ways to answer it.

IC
No need for reconciliation, as above.

CP
The Rebbe offered a new explanation to a well-known practice. He wasn't trying to introduce a new practice. In fact, the question was only brought in derech agav, to clarify the matter the Rebbe was explaining in the sicha, namely how one can have the same connection to the Rebbe even after he passed out of physical existence.
So betten by a Rebbe is not the same as davening to him. Your logic about the meaning of the Rebbe just doesn't follow. You say that "the Rebbe himself said it smacked of minus" (which he didn't, he was simply referring to an older issue that had been brought up in other seforim, as explained and obvious), yet he still held what you allege. Harotze leshaker yarchik edav. One doesn't bring up a question that negates what they're saying and then go on to say that despite the question. When I pointed this out to you, you ignored the point and said "I'm waiting for your answer". The point is that you're misconstruing what the Rebbe said, and any evidence to the contrary you deem irrelevant. Despite your claim to have seriously considered what the Rebbe said, your responses reveal the extent of credibility you gave the Rebbe to begin with. This was my point from the beginning.
Now it is a valid proof to show that an accepted source concurs with a given position, without having to prove the validity again. It is classic in Gemara (e.g. Im kabala hi nekabel etc.). I pointed out that your problem of "betten by a Rebbe" is ubiquitous to Chassidim from the Baal Shem Tov.

IC
You pointed out that, but without providing any evidence. I assume that, outside of modern Chabad and certain second generation Chassidic groups, there is no history of such behavior among Chassidim.

CP
If your problem is particularly with Chabad, then you agree that what other Chassidim do is Al Pi Torah. (It is interesting that when I brought this up, you responded that millions of Ovdei Avodah Zarah doesn't make it right. You say that you are not opposed to Chassidus in general, yet you still make this statement.)

IC
I never said millions of Chassidim are ovdei avodah zarah – you’ve misunderstood me. In case I wasn’t clear before, what I meant (and said) was that even if millions did it, it wouldn’t prove that it was right.

CP
The point of your earlier correspondent and mine in bringing this up was that if you have a problem with "betten" then you must think Chassidus is Kefirah, not just Chabad (something you vehemently deny). It's clarifying and revealing to know that.)

IC
Wrong. Even if it’s possible that you might find some dubious sources in early Chassidic writings, there’s nothing going on in that department now. And I would doubt that there are any Lubavitchers who would know what’s going on among mainstream Chassidim these days anyway, because there’s virtually no serious contact between those two worlds (when was the last time you had a deep theological conversation with a chassid?).

CP
I mentioned Moshe, Eliyahu, Elisha and R' Chanina ben Dosa simply to bring instances in which Tzadikim were petitioned directly, although the people could have prayed directly to G-d.

IC
Directly? They were asked to daven to God, that’s all. But, again, that’s irrelevant to our issue.

CP
"it’s really God who’s providing everything so why not just leave the poor Rebbe out of the whole equation and daven straight to God?" Your rejoinder that Moshe then asked G-d to provide meat was a non-sequiter. Here again, you claim that Chassidim are praying directly to the Rebbe, not to G-d, but when your correspondent replied that we're asking the Rebbe to elicit the hashpa'ah from G-d, your argument is that - in that case - they should ask directly from G-d.

IC
You’ve missed my point. My corresponded was trying to rationalize “betten” (he understood that it meant far more than “ask for a bracha”) by claiming that speaking to the rebbe was really only like putting in a direct request to God using his Rebbe as God’s answering machine (which is nothing at all like our requests for brachos that we aim at tzadikim). I replied that if a Lubavitcher really felt that his Rebbe was nothing more than God’s answering machine, then he should simply call direct.

CP
I fail to see your point about the Rambam not making a distinction between a meilitz and a Tzadik. I also don't understand how you differentiated between "a screen between man and G-d" and a meilitz.

IC
There’s really not much of a point to see: the Rambam simply doesn’t make a distinction. End of the story.

CP
As far as "tortured" distinctions, the distinctions were made by others (e.g. the Chasam Sofer) not by Chabad.

IC
Not true. See above.

CP
Unless you understand meilitz to mean asking from and believing that the hashpa'ah comes from someone other than G-d. But that's not a meilitz, that's Avoda Zara in its most acute form. Read the Rambam over again. Maybe that's where you went wrong in understanding the sicha.
[Parenthetically, the Rambam as a rationalist is a modern convention. The Rambam wrote in a time when philosophy was very much in vogue, both Judaic and otherwise. This was the style he chose to speak to his audience. He believed in Tzaraas Habatim and Nivul Sotah, things which have no rational or scientific basis. In fact, many think that he was a secret kabalist (see for example Rambam L'Am). Certainly he's quoted extensively throughout Chassidus.]

IC
It’s more than style. See what he writes in More about anthropomorphisms, melachim and nevua.

CP
Your explanation of the function and problem of a meilitz is nice, but not exclusive. The simplest understanding of the Rambam is that "meilitz" is the original form of Avoda Zara as practiced in Dor Enosh.

IC
No way. See the Chazon Ish and Rav Hirsch (both of whom I reference in the book) who demonstrate clearly that the Rambam’s minus is an error in understanding while avodah zarah is an active act of worship or service. Saying it your way reduces the Rambam’s language in hilchos Teshuva to near-random expressions.

CP
The problem is giving Kavod to anyone other than Hashem. Tzadikim are, therefore, a totally different story.

IC
Are you saying that it’s ok to give kavod to tzadikim the way you’d give it to God? That’s the very same story.

CP
As to your remark that the problem with a meilitz is chibur, that is a problem only because it's a meilitz. With regard to Tzadikim it says that "Ledavka Bo" is fulfilled precisely through attachment to a Talmid Chacham.

IC
No. No and no. The Rambam’s issur is avodah or hillul of any type. Dvaikus to God through tzadikim is (according to the gemara in Kesubos) only by closeness to tzadikim (by doing business with them, marrying their daughters etc.) and not by avodah and hillul! Betten as avodah.

CP
With regard to the most direct conduit, Malachim and stars are Nivraim, while Neshamos are Banim, Alu Bemachshava, until Kula Chad with Hashem (particularly through Torah, veyesh lehaarich).

IC
Nope. Every morning, I say “Elokai, neshama. . . atta b’rasa”. Neshamos are nevraim.

CP
(Incidentally, if it's a soft spot, why are you so certain in your allegations? Maybe you should come to a concrete understanding of meilitz first.) Note, the term meilitz is used in the Torah to mean an interpreter, which fits in with my explanation of "memutza hamafsik".

IC
I never claimed to have a perfect understanding of all Torah. My “softness” on this subject inspired me to understand it better. I now do. In any case, the real reason I have adopted my interpretation it’s miles and miles more likely to be true than does yours.
And your “interpreter” definition doesn’t fit with the Rambam’s halacha – which is what we agreed on as our baseline.

CP
[On a related matter, you make a point that "Anochi Omed bein Hashem etc." refers 1) only to one time, 2) only from Hashem to the people. When I pointed out that Moshe also brought the people's words to Hashem, you said that it's irrelevant.

IC
It’s irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make: that a human being can be a meilitz (in the Rambam’s use of the word). Of course Moshe davened for others. I’ve said many times that that’s perfectly alright. And of course he repeated certain requests of the nation. But he was not a meilitz. And you have stated that a tzadik may be a meilitz (even in the Rambam’s sense). I think you’re very wrong and I will say again that you have absolutely no proof from Moshe.

CP
Now you have a major problem with people asking the Rebbe for brachos,

IC
Again. I have no problem with anyone asking any (living) person for a bracha.

CP
because if Hashem wouldn't give it, how could the Rebbe? But you would have to agree that a Tzadik can affect certain things that would not have happened through regular channels. In fact "Tzadik gozer vHKB"H mekayem", and "HKB"H gozer vetzadik mevatel".

IC
I’ve never heard of "HKB"H gozer vetzadik mevatel", but I’ll assume there’s some source. In any case, what does it mean? That, because of his loyalty to God, the tefilos of a tzadik are far more likely to be granted.

CP
If you want to read into that that the Tzadik has powers stronger than Hashem, go ahead; but that's not what any Chassid understands, and certainly not what the Rebbe says. That's ridiculous. You completely dodged the question of what was meant by "habrachos nesunos lach etc."

IC
I didn’t hear any question worth answering. But if you like, here’s my response. Why should you think that means anything more than what I would say to my kids when (or, more likely, if) I gave them some money: “because you’ve acted nicely, you can spend this any way you like”?

CP
The point is, there is a source for the concept of certain people having the ability to bless others. This is not the same as praying for others. Prayer is a request we make of Hashem, which He can fulfill even if we don't deserve it. Bracha is related to the verb "lehavrich", to draw downward, which is to draw down the spiritual Shefa that the person being blessed has, that it should affect this world. You may not agree with this distinction, but that doesn't make it wrong.

IC
Where does lehavrich mean “to draw downward”? Anyway, I’ve already written about the meaning of tefila, and bracha with sufficient clarity.

CP
(RSH on the distinction between bracha and Tefillah is not relevant to our discussion. He is talking about the difference between when we say a brachah and when we daven.)

IC
No he’s not. Rav Hirsch saw language, Torah and even nature and science as part of one great totality. He would never have separated a word’s meaning from its application to God’s world! Such connections could in fact be described as the very core of his entire work.

CP
To sum up on the question of "betten by a Tzadik": Your proof that the Rebbe meant something other than what is traditionally meant was that for a Tzadik to daven on someone's behalf you don't need to say "Atzm"h in a guf". Also the idea that the Rebbe would know what the Chassid was thinking in some other location implies omniscience. The whole concept of "Atzmus in a guf" implies that your prayer need go no further, since the Rebbe is the end of the line. Approaching a human being with your problems is minus. So 1. there's no problem approaching a human being to elicit divine assistance on your behalf (above). 2. For a Rebbe to know what a Chassid is thinking doesn't equal omniscience (Claim No. 6). 3. Atzmus means Hashem, not the Rebbe (Claim No. 1). 4. The assumption that the Rebbe's premise is coming to be matir something unheard of is a misunderstanding (above).

IC
I’ve dealt sufficiently with each of these above (except for #2 which will come below).

CP
Claim #3 Zohar says clearly that visiting a Tzadik's grave is fundamentally different than the way the goyim lehavdil do it. Beis Yosef on Siman 179 (Y"D) is irrelevant. I don't have access to the Gesher Hachaim at this point. On the contrary, the Tur and Beis Yosef you quoted would seem to prove my point.

IC
Why should I care how goyim visit graves and what does that have to do with our discussion?

CP
Claim #4 There is no place that a claim was made that the Rebbe is as great a prophet as Moshe. As far as other qualities, see below.

IC
I’ve definitely seen the claim in sichos (but I can’t remember exactly where – it’s among the many times your Rebbe referred to himself as “Moshe sh’b’dor”).

CP
On the subject of the Rebbe's prophecy, you again engage in sarcasm and condescension. When the question should have been "prove the Rebbe was a prophet", you instead said that there wasn't a national experience of his prophecy like Moshe. When I pointed that out, you told me to look in the Rambam's criteria for a prophet. There's nothing new there; the question can only be does the Rebbe fit the bill. I don't care if you believe the Rebbe was a prophet, so I'm not going to try to prove it. But accept criticism when it's right. Your reference to Igeres Teiman is out of context, and purely provocative.

IC
Since you consider the Rambam to be an authority (and since your rebbe made so many claims concerning moshiach), you should indeed read Igeres Teiman. There, you will find, among other things, that Moshiach will be unknown before his sudden revelation and that he will first come to our attention in Eretz Yisrael. But that is, of course, entirely tangential to our point.

CP
Claim #5 We agreed that that's irrelevant, as it's not kefira. There is no need for you to accept it, but one cannot call it kefira,as R' Feldman said in his letter, and you agreed. As to why the Rebbe specifically, it's a good question, but irrelevant to our discussion. (As a side note about identifying Moshiach, did R' Sheila, R' Chanina and R' Yanai, or Rebbi, fight Milchamos Hashem? Did they force all Jews to follow Torah?

IC
As they were still alive, their careers were not yet over.

CP
Or, for that matter, did Daniel? Or were they just seen as likely candidates, not halachically b'chezkas Moshiach?)

IC
That’s not a bad question. But it doesn’t bolster your case. Perhaps we could say that the Rambam didn’t consider that gemara (which is, after all, clearly aggadic) as having any halachic bearing.

CP
Claim #6 Once again, this is a misrepresentation. Gala sodo el avadav haneviim. See the Zohar (quoted on the topic of Doresh el Hameisim) about what Tzadikim know (even?!) after their histalkus: Tzadikim yadi betzaara dealma ... This in no way means that he is omniscient. As mentioned, the Rebbe is considered the "Head of the Jewish People". As such, he is connected to every Jew as the head feels the entire body. So asking for his intercession on one's behalf, even when he is distant (physically, spiritually, etc.), will be sensed by the Rebbe. The assertions "davening to a man means he's omniscient" "For someone to be aware of conversations beyond his natural range of hearing requires infinite knowledge" were never backed up, and don't necessarily follow. (I'm accepting the term "davening" here to mean asking for a bracha, as this is the context in which you use it.) I asked you to cite a source for those assertions, and you responded with "How else can you explain it...?" That's not a source. As I've pointed out, Tzadikim are granted knowledge of things not known to the average man, as in "Gala sodo el avadav haneviim".

IC
I suspect that I would have trouble proving that point, so I think I’ll withdraw it.

CP
The concept of Hashem granting Tzadikim supernatural abilities is never acknowledged in any of your responses.

IC
I acknowledge that God probably uses tzadikim as vehicles through which He performs miracles more often than normal people. I’m not sure if that’s especially significant, though, as the miracle in any case is from and by God alone.

CP
It leads me to assume that you either reject that idea, or that you don't believe it is applicable nowadays. You don't say "Tzadikim shouldn't be prayed to, and don't answer prayers..."; you say "how can you expect a mortal to know your secret desires and fulfill them in a supernatural way?" I don't see how you can deny the supernatural abilities of Tzadikim.

IC
I’m not at all certain that tzadikim have any personal powers. I don’t think that tzadikim can gain access to hidden matters at will (even Moshe could only invoke nevuah, but he couldn’t a particular outcome of that nevuah). So, yes, if you mean that tzadikim somehow have their own innate powers that are independent of God’s will, then I would reserve judgment.

CP
In any case, the way you paint the Rebbe-Chassid relationship is quite childish. The connection to a Tzadik is part of Avodas Hashem, not a means of wish-fulfillment. To have a relationship with a Tzadik merely to fill your selfish needs is philosophically much closer to Avoda Zara than Avodas Hashem. (This from a hashkafic perspective, not halachic.)

IC
I would certainly agree with that.

CP
What you bring from the Gesher Hachaim I was unable to look up, as I don't have access to one. You're welcome to quote it to me.

IC
It’s a long chapter that’s worth seeing if you ever get hold of one (it’s the twentieth century’s primary sefer on hilchos availus written by R’ Yechiel Michal Tocheshinsky – the head of Jerusalem’s chevra kaddisha up until the forties). In the third chelek of the sefer, he addresses many of the philosophical applications of death.

CP
I fail to see your point from the Gemara in Shabbos. The Gemara says (on the TOP of the amud) that a mes only knows what you say about him until stimas hagolel or until the body rots. On the bottom it says that the bodies of Tzadikim don't rot. Similarly, when I pointed out that your statements about how and what a Tzadik knows were boich-sevaros, you answered that they're perfectly obvious to you. But meheichan dantuni? Especially since the Zohar, as mentioned, says that Tzadikim know when things are amiss in the world. (Incidentally, the Zohar in its entirety is quite interesting in the things it says about Tzadikim who have passed on and their connection with what goes on in our world. It so happens that this is part of the "maaneh Lashon" said by every Chassid when they visit the Rebbe's tziyun.)

IC
Actually, the Y’aras Devash (or, perhaps Tomer Devora – I’m not 100% sure) resolves the apparent contraction in the gemara in Brachos by observing that only plain people, who were so attached to this world in their lives, retain knowledge of the world after their deaths but tzadikim, who were always less worldly, lose complete contact. If I remember correctly, he quotes a number of ma’amorei Chazal as proof including the Midrash in the pesichta to Eichah Ravasi in which Yirmiya had to go wake up the Avos Haolum at the time of the churban so they should daven for their children (seemingly siding against the Maharal). Each one, upon awakening, asked “how is this day different from any other” – in other words, they had no clue what was happening.
Are there other Chazals that suggest otherwise? Quite possibly. That’s part of the sophistication a person needs to properly learn aggadita.

CP
One more note as per the idea of corresponding with a Tzadik when not at the gravesite: As a rule, any letter or pidyon written to the Rebbe is sent to the Ohel. If it's not immediately possible, it's placed in a sefer of the Rebbe until it will be taken to the Ohel. In addition, the Rebbe's objects (table, chair etc.) retain his holiness, and are also ways of "going to the Ohel". This is based on Gemara. If you'd like, I'll give you the sources.

Claim #7 Misrepresented. See above (Claim #6).

Claim #8 "Halo es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz ani maleh". This was a basic disagreement between the Gra and the Alter Rebbe, which is addressed in Tanya, Shaar Hayichud veHaemunah ch. 7. The case can very well be made that to say otherwise is bordering on saying that Hashem is limited, or that there is existence outside of Him.
Your statement that to believe what it says in Tanya (re: Atzmus encompassing everything) is dangerous, is absurd. As mentioned, certain sources are universally accepted authorities. And just as R' Chaim based himself on the Arizal etc., the Alter Rebbe did as well. It's a difference of opinion, follow your derech. But it doesn't make another approach wrong or dangerous (?!). As far as the "sheer power of [R' Chaim's] sevaros", have you learned Tanya to know the "sheer power of the Alter Rebbe's sevaros"? That's not a valid argument.

IC
It is a valid argument, but it’s just difficult to prove under these circumstances. So we’ll have to agree to disagree.

CP
I made the point that you use a double standard in claiming immunity to criticism because you based yourself on authorities, yet you don't give that same credibility to someone who bases himself on shitas Chabad.

IC
That tautological. It’s shitas Chabad that’s “on trial” (so to speak) so you can’t refer to the shita itself as proof. You may choose not to engage in such a debate, but if you do engage, you have no choice but to seek outside evidence.

CP
You responded that you had already addressed the issue. But you ignored my point. You can't hold others to a standard you don't hold yourself to. You can't say "what your "Gadol" is saying doesn't make sense. Prove it. " and say "I'm right because I have a 'Gadol" who backs me up".

IC
This is a distraction from the quality of the respective arguments themselves.

CP
Your comments about the amalgam of mesoros is getting away from the point. I pointed out that two Talmidei Chachamim can have a legitimate disagreement without one or the other being branded a min. You don't seem to want to concede that point. I have no problem with what you hold. I have a problem with you slandering Chabad on the internet. To quote you, "In that context, I use the voice of a nitan".

IC
Again: two talmidei chochomim who follow the base rules of Torah can have a legitimate disagreement. But if one of them argues for a position that lies outside of the Torah system then he has no standing or protections. In this dialogue, we’re trying to determine whether chabad and atzmus theology is outside of the system. So you can’t complain if I make such references in the course of the discussion.

CP
Claim #9 The Midrash says "Ein dor she'ein bo keMoshe". In Tikunei Zohar (Tikun 69 p.112a and 114a) it says furthermore, that ispashtusa deMoshe b'chol dara. Again, you don't have to believe it's the Rebbe, but you can't argue that it contradicts Torah (?!). The similarity to Moshe is in the realm of "Hanasi hu hakol". As long as we're not talking about Nevuah per se, there's no problem. For example, the Gemara says that Rashbi saw through an "Aspaklaria Hameirah", though this is one of the unique qualities of Nevuas Moshe, because the Gemara is not referring to Rashbi's level of NEVUAH, but to his Hasagah (see the Maharsha on Sukkah there). Your statement "you'd have trouble proving that medaberes wasn't a quality that was unique to the Nevuah of Moshe" is completely unfounded. Why do you say that when the Rambam doesn't count as one of the criteria? We agreed that we would use the Rambam as the arbiter. Devarim 5,5 is also not unique to Nevuas Moshe. Whether you want to take it to be a one time event or a characteristic of Moshe's leadership depends on your school of thought. It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.

IC
As we’ve already commented, Devarim 5; 5 has also nothing to do with our discussion so let’s leave it out please. I don’t really care if you think your rebbe is as great as Moshe, but I was only commenting on the Chabad literature that assigns your rebbe nevuah equal to Moshe’s.

CP
Claim #10 Hidavek betalmidim ubachachamim.... Hiskashrus is achieved through learning the Torah of the Rav, and fulfilling his directives. The belief that all the hashpaos come through the Nasi is also clear from Moshe, through whom the Bnei Yisrael were taken care of in the desert. He is called the Roeh Ne'eman. As already noted, the practice of asking a Tzadik to effect the hashpaah of your needs is well founded (Moshe, Eliyahu, Elisha, Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, Rashbi etc.).

IC I’ve discussed this above.

CP
Notes:
1. You insist that what the Rebbe meant is not as important as how Chassidim interpret it, yet you will not accept the interpretations of Chassidim because that's not what the Rebbe meant. Choose which one you want to argue.

IC
Not exactly. My position is that if you claim Lubavitchers believe their rebbe meant “x” by those words, and I feel that “x” is so distant both from any reasonable reading of the sicha AND from your rebbe’s probable understanding, then I won’t believe your claim.

CP
2. You say that when a Jew has a Chezkas Kashrus, you can't base halachic decisions on that; yet when I counter that Chezkas Kashrus is a concept in Halacha, you respond that the Rebbe has no Chezkas Kashrus.

IC
What?? Again: a regular frum Jew off the street has a chezkas kashrus and must be treated (and trusted) accordingly as a result. But, just like public chillul Shabbos is one example of behavior that will void a person’s chezkas kashrus (would you eat from the shechita or trust the STaM of a mechallel shabbos?), so too professing attitudes of minus will void that chezkas kashrus (see Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zara 2; 5). If (and only if) your rebbe can be demonstrated to have held such attitudes, then the consequences are clear. Why should he be treated any differently than any other Jew?

CP
Taano chitim vehoda lo beseorim. You ran me around in a circle with the Dan Lekaf Zechus business. I said every Jew should be judged Lekaf Zechus. Therefore, when a Jew makes a statement that sounds questionable, the route to take is to try to understand it in an acceptable light. So you said that there is no need to be Dan Lekaf Zechus when someone makes a questionable statement, because he made a questionable statement. You referred to people who are mechalelei shabbos etc. When I pointed out that the Rebbe was careful about Kala kachamurah, you responded "let's get back to the point". But that is the point. Your prejudice is coloring your read on the issue, something you refuse to admit. Similarly, when I say that your approach should be "mitzvah letaretz", you answer that there's no mitzvah, because it's minus.

IC
See above.

CP
3. You say that the Rambam would never be mechalek between memutza hamechaber and memutza hamafsik, yet you have no question about the permissibility of saying "borchuni leshalom", despite the fact that you believe the Rambam wouldn't agree.

IC
See what I said above about the Chasam Sofer. The problem of “borchuni leshalom has nothing to do with minus or avodah zarah – it’s just “katnus emunah”. It’s simply not a question of issur v’heter and certainly nothing to do with the Rambam.

CP
4. Your approach to Christianity is much softer than I would have expected. Yeshu was shunned by the Perushim during his lifetime because he was a mesis umediach, and (ostensibly) rejected Torah Shebaal Peh, and probably was over on many other mitzvos.

IC
Probably. Although there is no hard evidence that he’s even the subject of those gemaros of if they’re by some other sectarian. There’s also really no hard evidence that Jesus ever existed (even if I don’t doubt that he did exist, we really know nothing about him and his agenda to talk intelligently).

CP
In fact, his followers were referred to as minim, which can tell you what kind of theology they subscribed to. Your willingness to give any validity whatsoever to their claims is simply in order to be able to draw a comparison to Lubavitch, lehavdil elef alfei havdalos.

IC
I wasn’t going easy on them. I hold that they’re full minim who, even if they did keep other mitzvos, are not considered kosher Jews in any respect (beyond birth for those of Jewish mothers and the opportunity for teshuva). My point was that I honestly don’t see any significant difference between their theology and messianic system and that much of modern chabad literature.

CP
As for Jews for J, they're not Jewish. They're are a deceptive cover for missionizing to Jews. They certainly have no claim to any kind of Kaf Zechus. And I fail to see your comparisons of Lubavitch to Jews for J, mechalelei Shabbos, Karaites etc. I have no problem with rejecting ideas and movements that are not Al Pi Torah.

IC
Don’t worry, I know just who Jews for Jesus are. But see the Rambam from Avodah Zarah that I mentioned just above and you’ll understand why I’m unsure if Lubavitchers have any different status (“and also Jewish minim do not have the status of Jews in any sense”). Obviously you disagree with my understanding of minus and chabad theology, but I’m sure you can at least visualize my mindset based on my line of reasoning.

CP
My point is that Chabad IS Al Pi Torah. You are misinterpreting. If you asked a Karaite whether he believed in Torah Shebaal Peh, he would answer "no". However, every Lubavitcher who is asked whether they believe it is assur to pray to anyone other than Hashem invariably responds "of course!" So you ask them "what about this sicha...?" They never deny it! They explain to you how you are misreading it, and it isn't a stirah. I should think that would make all the difference. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.
5. You claim several times to be addressing the subject with "respect" and with "restraint", yet when I call you on your insulting attitude, you respond "this is far off the topic", "b'makom chilul Hashem ein cholkin kavod larav".
6. In general, there seems to be a trend of not addressing the real issues. For example: the problem with identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach started way before his histalkus, yet the claim is always "how can you say Moshiach from the dead"?

IC
I really don’t discuss the moshiach issue in any depth and, as I don’t think it has any bearing on kashrus etc., I have no interest in changing my policy.

CP
Similarly, if not for the Atzmus sicha, there'd be other complaints against hiskashrus.

IC
I suspect you’re correct. Hiskashrus, Chabad style, indeed, seems troublesome.

CP
7. If Chabad was so clearly kefira (the sicha is from 1950), why didn't the frume velt disassociate themselves from Lubavitch (as in hibadlu meal ohalei ...) back then? (I know there have been radical misnagdim throughout the years, and even some who may have called it kefira, but I'm referring to a vast number who, despite differences they may have had with certain things the Rebbe said, still considered Lubavitch to be Yiddishkeit).

IC
To varying degrees, we have. Have you ever seen Artscroll or Feldheim (or Jewish Observer, for that matter) publish any Chabad books? Lubavitchers have certainly tried. Are there any yeshivos anywhere in which an unfortunate Chabad talmid won’t be ridiculed for his beliefs (as I write in the book, I don’t approve of such ridicule, but it is absolutely universal)?
Why did we not separate our kashrus etc., years ago? Mostly because there was so little information about Chabad literature and no one believed that things could be so bad. There were insiders, by the way, who did react strongly. I have a friend whose wife’s uncle was a Chabad shaliach back in the forties and fifties. He left the movement soon after your rebbe took over. In the writings he left behind him was a comment that the movement, post 1951, had become saturated with avodah zarah.

CP
8. Ein meviin rayah meAriel Sokolovsky (Shabbos 104b). Hashem Tzidkeinu has a makor in Gemara, but I'll agree that he and anyone who agrees with him is over the top. (-later insert- I just saw his website. You're right about him.) They are certainly not the "thousands of baalei teshuvah". I don't know who the people in your small community are, but I'm pretty sure that your problems with them are about things I've already explained, and not because they think the Rebbe is G-d.
9. Apropos the difference between criticism and disagreement vs. sinas chinom, take a look at how questions about Chabad customs and hashkafah are dealt with on aishdas.org in the Avodah archives.
10. In the story of Mrs. Lipszyc, I said that there was a misunderstanding of the terminology she used, and explained what her statements meant in the context of Chabad thought. To that you responded "that's not what she said". Right. That's what problems with terminology means. Person A says something that means one thing to them, but something totally different to Person B. You have to see it from Person A's head in order to properly understand it, not insist to continue to see it your way, thus "proving" that it's wrong. To me, "Eye" means a part of a persons body from which he sees. When you say "Hashem's eyes", that must mean that Hashem has a body (ch''v). What I should do is say "What does the Torah probably mean when it uses this term?" That's the only way I'll be able to arrive at the true meaning.
11. Regarding Rabbi Charitonow, I don't know what the context was, but I know him to be a yirei shomayim, and would not suspect him of kefira. I would need more information, like seeing the article.
12. Chassidus in the Chabad lexicon is usually referring to Chassidus Chabad. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Being that we mainly study Chabad Chassidus, we don't qualify every time we mention it that it is specifically Chabad, and neither will I. It is Chassidus in contrast to Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, not in contrast to other Chassidus.
13. You seemed surprised at my statement that maaseh rav is the strongest proof in halachah, making a snide remark about Chabad tradition. When I questioned you about it, your answer implied that your problem was more with using the Rebbe as a source for deriving the proper way to act than from the idea of maaseh rav itself being a basis for halachic psak. And I think you'll agree, that when there is a machlokes, the halacha might be paskened either way. However when there is a maaseh rav of a Rav either paskening or acting according to a certain opinion, the matter need not be questioned further as to (at least) the permissibility and correctness of acting that way. And as a matter of fact, the correspondent referred to stories of a) the Arizal, and b) Ben Ish Chai, neither of whom were Chabad or Chassidim. If you had a question, it should have been for the source of these stories, but your prejudice didn't allow you to hear ...

IC
My comment had nothing to do with your Rebbe. You misunderstood it. I give virtually no halachic credence to apocryphal or oft-told (and likely altered) stories from any source. The Arizal or ben Ish Chai stories (as much as I respect both of those men and as much as I love learning the latter’s Torah), are thus of little halachic consequence.

CP
14. You don't know very much about Chabad mesorah (of the behavior of Rebbeim and their Chassidim). It is certainly not any less "controlled" than the piskei halacha that abound in the Yeshivah community today, by the way you describe it. V'ein kan mekomo.
15. I'm interested in where the information on Rabbi Butman's position in the community comes from. It's not accurate.