Stump Your Friendly Chabad Rabbi
If you are intrigued by Chabad’s theologies, but you are also seeking to understand ancient, authentic Torah truths, then you need to consider if Chabad philosophy can be reconciled with those authentic Torah truths.
If you have already firmly decided that Chabad theology is the authentic Torah theology, then it’s not necessary for you to investigate these questions.
These questions review some apparently problematic Chabad beliefs and theologies which may be of interest to those studying Chabad beliefs:
1. TANYA MISQUOTE: Chabad’s sefer Tanya starts with the word “tanya”, an Aramaic Talmudic word normally indicating a “breisah” (IE an early Mishna) is being cited. The Tanya is citing a statement in the Talmud Nidah 30b that was authored by Rabbi Simlai, a 4th century Amorah who did not author any “breisahs”: “דרש רבי שמלאי למה הולד דומה במעי אמו”. This is apparently NOT a “breisah”.
One senior Torah scholar I consulted with informed me that the sefer Tanya is misquoting the Talmud. It is quite amazing that an article on chabad.org admits that the citation in sefer Tanya is problematic!
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4246615/jewish/Why-Is-Tanya-Called-Tanya.htm
How could the first Chabad rebbe have authored the Tanya if the Tanya is misquoting the Talmud?
2. TANYA’S AUTHOR: There appear to be serious questions about the authorship of the sefer Tanya, which Chabad claims was authored by the first Chabad rebbe.
However, the chabad.org website admits that the original Tanya written by the first Chabad rebbe was somehow lost (how this could happen never seems to be explained).
“To our misfortune the manuscripts written by his personal saintly hand which were composed with great punctiliousness, without a superfluous or deficient letter, have become extinct” (Chabad dot org approbations page)
https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/1028865/jewish/Approbations.htm
These pages on the Hebrew books site of early Tanya printings do not seem to list the first Chabad rebbe as the author of the sefer Tanya.
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43884&pgnum=1
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43319&pgnum=1
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43320&st=&pgnum=1
Where in these early Tanya printings does it actually state that the first Chabad rebbe authored the Tanya? If we don’t know who really authored the Tanya, why should we grant the Tanya the great degree of authenticity proclaimed by Chabad?
3. AUTHENTICITY OF THE ZOHAR: The Zohar is a primary book (or collection of books) of Jewish “mysticism”, first printed in the late 16th century, from which Chabad derives much of its philosophy. Articles on the chabad dot org website allege that the great Tanna (Talmudic sage) Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (Rashbi) authored the Zohar, thus atempting to equate the Zohar with the authority of the Talmud. However, Rashbi lived around the second century C.E., and the Zohar did not appear for over a thousand years after Rashbi had passed away!
Why is it that neither the Talmud nor any of the great medieval rabbis mention the existence of a book called the Zohar allegedly authored by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai? If Rashbi actually wrote such a book, wouldn’t it have been mentioned in the Talmud or have been mentioned by the medieval rabbis? How can a valid mesorah exist for a book that suddenly appeared in Jewish history without a rabbi claiming to be the author?
4. MAN GOD: In the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot, a compilation of all the mitzvot in the Torah, the first negative commandment is the prohibition to believe in or associate “Elokus” to anything but Hashem, this is also the first of the “10 commandments” “You shall have no other gods besides me” (Exodus 20:3).
This Chabad video claims the rebbe is beyond our comprehension, he is allegedly Elokus, Ein Sof etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W4gVmFZdyI
There are other Chabad rabbis making similar claims about the deceased Chabad rebbe. Aren’t the Chabad rabbis who teach that the deceased rebbe is “Elokus” violating the very first negative commandment of the “10 commandments” in the Torah?
5. RESURRECTED MOSHIACH: Videos on this Chabad youtube channel claim that the Chabad rebbe is “resurrected”, he is the “atzmus” (essence) of God enclothed in a body, he is a prophet, God has a twin, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/@MoshiachReality/videos
Other than a different messiah/savior, what is the difference between the false messiah taught in these Chabad videos and the Dec. 25th false messiah which Jews have rejected for 2000 years?
6. MOSHIACH HAS A SON: In the Rambam’s Commentary to Tractate Sanhedrin, Introduction to Perek Chelek, the Rambam writes:
” והמשיח ימות וימלוך בנו תחתיו ובן בנו וכבר ביאר הנביא את מיתתו לא יכהה ולא ירוץ עד ישים בארץ משפט ויאריך מלכותו ימים רבים עד מאד
But the Messiah will die and his son will reign in his place, and then his grandson. And the prophet has already explained his death: ‘He (the messiah) will not tire and will not be crushed until he puts justice in the world’ (Isaiah 42:5). And his kingdom will continue for a very long time.”
Certain Chabad rabbis have been claiming for some time that the deceased Chabad rebbe meets the Rambam’s qualifications for the Moshiach. Yet the Rambam, as cited above, clearly states that the Moshiach will have a son.
If the deceased Chabad rebbe is really the Moshiach, where is his son?
7. REBBE INFALLIBLE: In a Chabad video, a Chabad rabbi claims that the (deceased) rebbe cannot make a mistake.
However, in the Torah Parsha of Vayikrah, we learn that the whole Sanhedrin (high court of Judaism) can rule in error, in which case they must bring a special offering in the Temple as a sin offering.
If the whole Sanhedrin, IE the most learned and pious rabbis of that generation, can make an error, how is it possible that the Chabad rebbe cannot make an error?
8. INFALLIBLE HUMANS: In Chpt. 3 of the Rambam’s Hilchos Teshuvah, the Rambam states that “each and every person has sins and merits…if his sins and merits are equal, he is termed a benoni”. Thus it is clear that the Rambam rejects the non-Jewish notion that any person could be without any sin.
However, Chapter 12 of Chabad’s Tanya states that “the beinoni has never committed any transgression, nor will he ever transgress”. Chabad views its rebbes as Tzaddikim, who would be by the Chabad definition on an even higher level than a benoni.
Where did authentic ancient Torah sources ever claim that anyone was on the level of what Chabad defines as a benoni or a tzaddik?
9. GOD HAS PARTS: The blessing of “Elokai, neshama sh’nasata bi” (My God, the soul you placed in me is pure…) is printed in most Jewish prayer books, it is a citation from statements that appear in the Talmud. These statements from the Talmud clearly indicate that Hashem created and fashioned the neshama.
The second “ikkar” principle of the Rambam’s 13 principles states that God has no disparate elements or parts whatsoever, God’s oneness is a oneness to which no other oneness can be compared whatsoever.
Chovos HaLevavos, Shaar HaYichud teaches similar to the Rambam, IE anything composite or made of parts has been created.
However, Chpt. 2 of Chabad’s sefer Tanya states “The second, uniquely Jewish, soul is truly a part of G‑d above”.
How can Tanya’s claim that the neshama is “part of God” be reconciled with the Rambam’s 2nd ikkar?
How can Tanya’s claim that the neshama is “part of God” be reconciled with the blessing that Hashem created and fashioned the neshama?
Did Hashem create and fashion Himself?
10. GNOSTICISM-WORLD IS EVIL: The Torah states that “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31).
However, Chapter 45 of Chabad’s Tanya claims that this world is “the nadir of the coarse klipot (evil shells)”, thus defining this world as the nadir of evil. Chapter 24 of Chabad’s Tanya states that “all matters of this world are harsh and evil”.
The concept of “klipot” does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the Talmud or by the medieval rabbis. Tanya’s radical cosmology, where the world is deemed evil except for some “sparks of God” that fell into it, seems to have been based on an ancient pagan mystery religion known as Gnosticism. It appears that many ancient Jews believed in some form of Gnosticism, even though much of Gnostic philosophy conflicts with the teachings of the Torah and the ancient Torah sages.
How can Chabad’s concept of the world being described as “klipot” possibly be reconciled with the statements in Genesis that the world is very good?
11. GNOSTICISM-BODY IS A SERPENT SKIN: In Chapters 31 & 45 of Tanya, it asserts an idea from the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism that a “divine spark” is enclothed in a serpent skin (IE the human body). In strong contrast to this, the Talmudic sages required us to pronounce a blessing after we leave the bathroom, stating that God created Man with great wisdom. In the modern age we know that the human body is a fantastic piece of biological engineering that contains great wisdom in its design. How can the serpent skin described by Tanya be considered great wisdom?
12. PANTHEISM: Pantheism is an ancient philosophy that asserts that the totality of the physical Universe is comprised of God’s essence. For example, Chabad philosophy often describes God as filling the Universe, thus nullifying the existence of the Universe the way a ray of light would be nullified in the Sun.
This metaphor is very problematic as it would mean that Hashem is matter and energy, a concept that violates the Rambam’s 3rd principle.
Pantheism was rejected by many of the greatest rabbis such Saadiyah Gaon, Rambam, Radak, Rabbeinu Bachya, Ran, Rav Hirsch, Vilna Gaon, etc. Pantheism creates enormous problems for Torah beliefs because it nullifies the first verse in Torah, and it nullifies the existence of the Universe, the existence of nature, and the existence of man’s free will.
Chabad writings often cite Jeremiah 23:24: “Do I (Hashem) not fill heaven and Earth?”. However, Chabad seems to ignore the commentary of Radak (one of the greatest Biblical commentators) on that verse: “…this is a metaphor because God does not have a body that fills space, rather God’s providence is everywhere.” Radak’s viewpoint there appears to be the mainstream viewpoint of the medieval rabbis.
In “Derashot HaRan”, Derush 9, the great medieval rabbinic sage Rabbeinu Nissim argues the exact opposite from Tanya. Ran explains that God only interacts with this physical world through “innumerable intermediaries” and not directly, otherwise it would be easier to believe a person could approach the sun and survive, which as we know cannot happen. Thus Rabbeinu Nissim preserves the existence of the Universe and preserves the immateriality of Hashem.
Are we supposed to believe that our greatest medieval rabbis held the wrong conceptions of Hashem, while the Chabad rebbes did hold the correct conception of Hashem?
TORAH METAPHYSICS 