Classical Torah Vs. Chabad: Study of Science

Chabad spokesman frequently describe Chabad’s sefer Tanya as the “one size fits all” life manual. The intention of such statements apparently is to discourage the study of non-Chabad seforim, with the implication that Chabad seforim such as Tanya already contain the teachings of the previous (classical) Torah sages.

However, in my opinion, this claim is a major distortion of reality. There is much evidence that various Chabad doctrines radically conflict with classical Torah sources.

The following is intended as a starting point for comparison of classical viewpoints on studying science vs. the viewpoint of Chabad’s Tanya.

A. Chabad’s sefer Tanya claims that the study of science contaminates a Jew’s intellect:

“The impurity of the science of the nations is greater than the impurity of idle speech…in the case of the science of the nations; thereby one clothes and defiles his divine soul’s faculties of ChaBaD (intellect) with the impurity of the kelipat nogah contained in those sciences.” (Tanya, Chpt. 8)

B. In contrast to sefer Tanya, the great Torah theology and ethics book Chovos HaLevavos, Shar HaBechina states that Jews have a duty to study the created Universe and deduce the wisdom of the Creator in it:

“Is it our duty to study created things or not? We reply that the examination of created things and deducing from them the wisdom of the Creator is a duty which can be demonstrated from Reason, Scripture, and Tradition (the oral torah).”
(Chovos HaLevavos, Shar HaBechina, Chpt. 2)

C. Rambam states that study of the Creation increases a person’s love for Hashem:

“When man contemplates concerning these things, and perceives all creatures, whether angel, sphere, or man the likeness of himself, and discovers the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed is He! in all beings of form and in all creatures, his love for the Omnipresent increases and his soul and body thirst and yearn to love Him. . .”
(Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 4:12)

In contrast to Tanya, the great medieval rabbis such as Rambam and Rabbeinu Bachya wrote that Man cannot comprehend the essence of God, rather Man can only understand that God exists and is one.

However Man can and should examine the Universe to deduce the wisdom of the Creator.

Classical Torah Vs. Chabad: The Natural Order

Certain Chabad rabbis seem to aggressively but erroneously critique non-Chassidic Torah philosophies and then proclaim the superiority of Chabad Chassidus. The end goal here seems to be to invalidate and replace non-Chassidic Torah philosophies with Chabad Chassidus, ie “Replacement Theology”.

In this posting, I am making some basic comparisons of Chabad doctrine with non-Chassidic Torah sages. The purpose is not to denigrate Chabad, but to demonstrate how certain Chabad doctrines can conflict with classical Torah wisdom. Newcomers to Orthodox Judaism need to become more aware of these conflicts.

1. Chabad Sources-Live Supernaturally:

A. “And this, my friends, is what defines a Chassid as opposed to a non-Chassid. A non-Chassid, albeit a properly observant and pious Jew, conforms to normalcy and nature more readily than a Chassid, who prefers to go the supernatural route.”
https://rabbidanielgreen.blogspot.com/2020/06/gimmel-tammuz-how-to-end-love-affair.html

B. In a video by popular Chabad Rabbi Manis Friedman, he claims:

“Chassidus takes us out of the limitations of teva (nature) and makes possible things that are not in teva. . .”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E_CR63z700 – around 10:00 minutes.

C. On the Chabad website, it advises us to “live supernaturally”.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3106302/jewish/Nature-Miracles-Beyond.htm

2. Classical Torah Sages-DON’T Live Supernaturally:

A. Sforno’s commentary on Vayikrah 13:47:

“…the majority of the Israelite nation save an elite few, without a doubt are under the control of nature and the heavenly forces…similar to other living creatures who are not subject to God’s providence individually, but only in terms of their species…”

B. Talmud, Shabbat 32a:

“Rabbi Yannai acted in accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as he said: A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they on High will perform a miracle for him, lest in the end they do not perform a miracle for him. And, moreover, even if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits.”

C. Shabbat 32a is re-stated as halacha in Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Rotzeach 12:6; and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 115:5

D. Maharal on the Pesach Haggada, at the word Hallelukah:

“Hashem wants the natural order to remain functional…he thus allows idol-worshippers to naturally prosper in their idol worship, and even a righteous saint might be impoverished and afflicted, if nature so imposes.”

Also – Rav David Bar-Hayim has posted an informative video on Youtube –
“The Replacement Theology & False Messianism of Chabad”.

Classical Torah vs. Chabad: Negative Theology

The first gate of the Torah theology and ethics book Chovos HaLevavos is titled Shaar HaYichud. Shaar HaYichud contains a very clear and rational explanation of classical Torah theology.

Shaar HaYichud, Chpt. 10, explains that there are only three affirmative (positive) attributes we can ascribe to Hashem- He (permanently) exists, He is One, and He is Eternal.

The concept of “Negative Theology” requires that, except for the three attributes mentioned above, we only describe Hashem by employing negative descriptions, for example “He is not a body, He is not force in a body, He does not occupy space, etc.”

Shaar HaYichud quotes the Philosopher Aristotle that “negating attributes of G-d gives a truer conception of Him than affirming attributes”. This is because all affirmative attributes that are ascribed to G-d must of necessity comprise properties of either “etzem” (ie essence) or “mikre” (ie incidental properties). Thus Hashem, who created essence and incidental properties, cannot be ascribed these same properties He created in his creatures.

After a detailed explanation of this matter, Shaar Hayichud then reaches an essential conclusion regarding Torah theology: Man must apply his mind to know the Creator through the evidence of the works of the Creator, and not attempt to know the Creator in His actual essence. According to Shaar Hayichud, this level of knowledge is the height of knowledge that a person can actually reach, as referred to in the Torah:
“Know therefore this day and keep in mind that the LORD alone is God in heaven above and on earth below; there is no other. ” (Deut. 4:39)

These same “Negative Theology” concepts explained in Shaar HaYichud are fundamental to classical Torah theology. These concepts are also extensively explained and emphasized in the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim, in the Ramchal’s Daas Tevunos sefer, and in other Torah sources.

Chabad’s sefer Tanya is a fundamental Chabad book that is frequently described by Chabad as “The “one size fits all” life manual”. If we now examine Chabad’s sefer Tanya, Chpt 33 (and in other places) advises us “to consider how He (God) permeates all worlds, both upper and lower”. This seems to be suggesting that man can somehow contemplate the essence of God that allegedly fills all the worlds (“ממלא כל עלמין”).

Tanya, Chpt. 33, also describes how God, “before” the Creation event, allegedly filled the “space” wherein the Universe was “later” created.

These concepts in Chabad’s Tanya appear to be very problematic for several reasons:

1. Based on the classical Torah sources mentioned above, man cannot at all comprehend God’s essence.
2. “Filling”, ie occupying physical space, is a physical property. God has no physical properties and cannot be described as occupying space.
3. By describing God as “filling all worlds”, the distinction between the Creator and the created objects is eliminated on some level, opening the door to “shituf” (associating God with physical objects).
4. Rav Saadyah Gaon in his Torah sefer Emunot V’Deot explains that space itself was created during the Creation event. This concept would certainly be consistent with scientific observations in the last 100 years that demonstrated how the Universe began from a tiny point of matter and later expanded. (Ramban states explicitly in his commentary on Genesis that the Universe began with a tiny point of matter). As a result, Tanya’s claim that any “space” or “makom” existed before the Creation appears to be in error.

Tanya’s theology appears to be a radical departure from classical Torah theology in various ways. Man can only know something about the Creator through examination of the works of the Creation, because man cannot know the Creator through examining His essence.

Classical Torah vs. Chabad: Age of the Universe

The prior Chabad Rebbe zt”l (who passed away in 1994) in an article “Theories of Evolution” on the chabad dot org website offers several explanations for a young Earth creation theory. The prior Rebbe suggests that God could have created fossils of dinosaur bones, despite the fact that living dinosaurs never actually existed.

The prior Chabad Rebbe also cites some earlier sources about an ancient Universe, and then claims that a ruling (“psak”) was reached by the Arizal in this matter.

The claim that there is some kind of “psak” on the age of the Universe has no basis, not according to myself but according to Rambam. Nowhere does Rambam seem to state the age of the Universe, on the contrary in Moreh Nevuchim 2:13 the Rambam seems to equate such statements with heretical Aristotelian beliefs in an eternal Universe.

I believe Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan zt”l stated there is no Torah source that Hashem created bones of animals that never actually existed.

The notion that God would create fossil bones of animals that never existed would seem to conflict with the statement in the Talmud that “God’s seal is truth”.

The Rebbe writes that “This interpretation is indeed offered in several books”, IE the belief in an ancient Universe. The “books” the Rebbe is referring to include Breisheet Rabbah, IE the Midrash written by the ancient rabbis. The opinion of these ancient rabbis cannot simply be swept under the rug because they conflict with Chabad doctrine.

The treatise “Drush Ohr HaChaim” written by the great 19th Century Torah sage Tiferet Israel (and printed in some editions of the Talmud Sanhedrin) cites the ancient Torah sources (the “books” rejected by the Rebbe) to prove that an ancient Universe is not in conflict with the Torah.

I don’t believe Chabad can simply override the opinions of the ancient rabbis with an alleged “psak”. There is no “psak” on such matters without a prophet or at least a Sanhedrin. Arizal was not a posek. The writings attributed to him were actually written by later people after he passed away, these writings have become more like mythology inserted into Judaism.