Belief in speculative, heretical principles can cause Jews to lose their share in the next world. There seem to be many “Chabad philosophers” presenting ideas that conflict with traditional Torah sources. Jews who listen to lectures by Chabad philosophers should ask – where are authentic Torah sources for this philosopher’s opinions?
In this article, the term “Chabad philosopher” refers to Chabad Chassidim who are presenting public lectures containing speculative philosophic notions that seriously conflict with traditional Torah principles or theology. The “Chabad philosophers” may often have long beards and black hats, and they may create an impression of being learned in esoteric Torah principles, but these “philosophers” will usually not cite any valid traditional Torah sources for their invented speculative notions.
In this video, Chabad philosopher Manis Friedman objects to the concept that God does not possess body parts that humans do have. Friedman states that “there is something wrong with that whole concept…as if humans have things that don’t belong to God, He (God) doesn’t have it, only humans have it which doesn’t really make much sense…aren’t we created in his image?”.
Rambam (Maimonides) compiled the 13 Ikkarim (foundational principle of Torah Judaism) that present an authentic Torah intellectual belief system. These 13 Ikkarim have become widely accepted as representing authentic principles of Torah Judaism.
The Rambam’s Fourth Ikkar of his 13 principles is creation ex-nihilo (from nothing). Thus the concept that the whole Universe, including humans, should necessarily have physical properties that God does not possess makes perfect sense when one considers that the normative Torah belief is that God created the matter and energy of the Universe ex-nihilo (from nothing).
It is very clear from many sources that the normative Torah viewpoint from before the time of the Rambam over 800 years ago is that God has no physical properties. He created matter and energy from nothing, but He is not comprised of matter or energy. This is actually the Rambam’s Third Ikkar (principle) – “God is not a body or a force in a body”.
Beliefs that God has a body (or physical characteristics) were rejected by the greatest rabbis in history, such as Rav Saadiah Gaon, R’ Bachya Ibn Pakudah, Ran etc. Such beliefs are considered meenus (intellectual idolatry). Here I will cite an authentic, widely accepted Torah source. According to Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7, one who accepts that God exists but that He has a body or form is a “min” who has no share in the world to come (olam habaah).
The concept of Man being “created in God’s image” is in no way suggesting that God has any physical properties like Man has. Being “created in God’s image” is referring to immaterial properties of Man such as Man’s intellect and Man’s knowledge of good versus evil.
Another claim made by philosopher Friedman is that our arms are not real. This seems to derive from the dangerous error promoted by Chabad that the Universe itself is not real because everything in the Universe is allegedly God. Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch in his commentary on Genesis 1:4 wrote that this concept is a “deplorable error”.
Thus we see where a Chabad philosopher, even if he has a long beard and black hat, may present his own invented philosophy that is seriously in conflict with ancient Torah principles, where the Chabad philosopher fails to bring any authenticTorah sources that validate his speculative principles.
For those interested in studying the Rambam’s 13 principles as explained in detail by authentic Torah scholars, I recommend the Artscroll English/Hebrew volume “Kisvei HaRambam” on the Rambam’s writings, includes a detailed study of the 13 Ikkarim, written by authentic Torah scholars. (Note: I don’t work for Artscroll nor do I receive any compensation for mentioning this.) https://www.artscroll.com/Books/9781422633021.html
Belief in speculative, heretical principles can cause Jews to lose their share in olam habaah (the next world). Unfortunately, there seem to be many “Chabad philosophers” who may be presenting ideas that conflict with traditional Torah sources. Jews who continue to listen to lectures by Chabad philosophers should be constantly asking – where are authentic Torah sources for this philosopher’s opinions?
If you are intrigued by Chabad’s philosophies, but you are also seeking to understand ancient, authentic Torah truths, then you need to consider if Chabad philosophy can be reconciled with authentic Torah truths.
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!
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)
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.
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.
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?
Many Jews may be unaware that certain aspects of Chabad’s theology and philosophy seem to conflict with classical Torah theology and philosophy. When these issues are publicly raised, Chabad defenders usually try to suppress these discussions by quickly asserting “sinat chinam” (baseless hatred) allegedly against Chabad.
Chabad Discussions
My knowledge of the Chabad movement is not based on hearsay and second hand information. I learned in Litvish yeshivot, but I also learned in a Chabad yeshiva, and I have davened in Chabad shuls, including Meshichistim shuls. Chabad Meshichistim shuls seemed to me like a type of pre-Constantine “Jewish” Christianity, where the deceased Rebbe became the primary power operating in this world, and we are to wait for his second coming. I also know several ex-Chabad (but still Orthodox) rabbis who left Chabad due to the Meshichistim.
My purpose in writing this section is not to promote any “sinat chinam” (baseless hatred) against Chabadniks or Chassidim, or to malign the Chabad movement. There is no question that the Chabad movement does contain many well-intentioned, pious Orthodox Jews who seek to observe traditional Orthodox Judaism. The network of Chabad houses does provide a home to many newcomers to Judaism, people who might not feel comfortable in various less welcoming, non-Chabad Orthodox synagogues.
However, the Chabad Chassidic movement has also grown very large and prominent. Chabad spokesman may often aggressively present in synagogues, in public media, and in public forums, Chabad’s philosophy as a “one size, fits all” philosophy, or as an “all-inclusive” Torah philosophy. Many Jews who are not necessarily learned in Torah are then influenced by these often grandiose and/or erroneous claims by Chabad spokesmen.
Many of these Jews may be unaware as to the extent that certain aspects of Chabad’s theology and philosophy may conflict with classical Torah theology and philosophy. When these issues are publicly raised, Chabad defenders usually try to suppress these discussions by quickly asserting “sinat chinam” (baseless hatred) allegedly against Chabad.
This section is intended for thinking Jews who seek to study a broader range of Torah principles than is usually supplied by Chabad, and then apply some critical thinking skills to the various Chabad and non-Chabad Torah principles. In this book I am trying to enable some “consumer choice” for thinking Torah observant Jews. This means that intelligent Torah observant Jews need to be able to investigate various Torah philosophies and principles (even if they conflict with Chabad doctrines) and then decide which Torah doctrines are best suited for their intellect and their spiritual needs. This approach will meet the needs of far more Jews than an approach of dogmatically accepting Chabad’s doctrines as “one size fits all”.
Another major problem is that certain Chabad rabbis seem to be erroneously critiquing non-Chassidic Torah philosophies, and then proclaiming the superiority of Chabad Chassidus over the non-Chassidic Torah philosophies. Certain Chabadniks seem to be often disparaging what they consider to be the erroneous non-Chassidic doctrines of much of the non-Chabad Orthodox Jewish world. Are these Chabadniks tormented by a lurking possibility that classical non-Chassidic Torah philosophy might refute or negate the doctrines of Chabad Chassidus?
The Chabad movement demands the right to promote its concepts as the authentic Torah theology in many public Jewish media to non-Chabadniks. I’m not challenging their right to do so. However, if Chabad objects to its ideas being critiqued, then Chabad should cease attempting, in every Jewish media forum possible, to persuade non-Chabadniks to accept Chabad ideologies. The articles in this section have been written primarily so that Jews can be aware there are alternative theologies to Chabad theology. Baalei tshuvah (returnees to Judaism) especially need to be aware that Chabad is promoting certain radical theologies, not solely confined to the subject of moshiach, that can present severe conflicts with traditional Judaism. On these controversial subjects, it is vital that baalei tshuvah and other observant Jews have an opportunity to become aware of more traditional Torah viewpoints than Chabad is presenting them.
If you are a thinking Jew that attends a Chabad shul, you should be free to decide, within the boundaries of traditional Orthodox Judaism, which theologies/philosophies are suitable for your mentality and neshama. Even if you regularly attend a Chabad shul, you should not be obligated to accept Chabad’s specific Chassidic philosophy.
Anyone involved with the Chabad movement who also seeks out truth within Torah must exercise critical thinking and discretion to avoid blindly accepting false concepts that contradict the foundations of Judaism.
TORAH METAPHYSICS 