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?
Certain Chabad writers have greatly distorted the Rambam’s writings in regards to Moshiach to prove that the deceased Chabad rebbe is Moshiach. This bears resemblance to the Christian censors that mistranslated or deleted writings of the Jewish prophets that proved that the false Moshiach Jesus was not the Moshiach.
Certain Chabad writers and Meshichistim have greatly distorted the Rambam’s writings in regards to Moshiach in order to prove that the deceased Chabad rebbe is Moshiach. This bears resemblance to the Christian censors that mistranslated or deleted writings of the Jewish prophets that proved that the false Moshiach Jesus was not the Moshiach.
This article on a Chabad website is a good example of Chabad replacement theology on the subject of Moshiah.
The article linked above contains numerous falsifications, distortions and omissions of the Rambam’s writings on Moshiach:
‘we have received a prophecy that “the time for the redemption has arrived,”’ – Authentic prophecy ceased in ancient times. No Torah authorities outside Chabad, to my knowledge, have claimed that the “time for the redemption has arrived”. That claim is a figment of imagination among the Chabad Meshichistem.
The Rambam (Maimonides) wrote in his Mishneh Torah “‘If a king will arise from the house of David…”. No king has arisen in the Land of Israel since ancient times. A Jewish king must be annointed by the Sanhedrin (Rambam, Laws of Sanhedrin). The Rambam did not write that Moshiach is a ‘leader’, it is clear from the Jerusalem Talmud description of the Jewish king Bar Kochbah and the Rambam that Moshiach must be a Jewish king in the Land of Israel. The deceased Chabad rebbe was never a Jewish king and he was never in the Land of Israel.
The Rambam (Maimonides) wrote in his Mishneh Torah that the Moshiach “will compel all of Israel to walk in the ways of the Torah”. The deceased Chabad rebbe never accomplished that, nor did the Chabad rebbe accomplish the primary tasks that are required of Moshiach.
Similar to the Christians who censored the Jewish prophets, the Chabad article linked above deleted a whole halacha from the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. This halacha disqualifies both Jesus and the deceased Chabad rebbe from being Moshiach: “If he (the Moshiach) did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah. Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. God caused him to arise only to test the many, as Daniel 11:35 states: ‘And some of the wise men will stumble, to try them, to refine, and to clarify until the appointed time, because the set time is in the future.'” (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11:5) The halacha cited above proves that according to the Rambam, once a person dies, they can no longer be considered Moshiach.
The Chabad article claims that “The Arizal writes that Moshiach will first redeem himself…”. There are apparently no manuscripts available written by the Arizal. The claims about the Arizal’s teachings were written long after he died in the 16th century. There is no authentic source in Judaism that the Moshiach appears, begins his mission, then dies, and is resurrected to complete his mission. That concept is from a different Bible than the Jewish Bible.
Another example of “replacement theology” is this article on Chabad dot org:
The article linked above omits the Rambam’s statement in Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars, 11:5 “Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. God caused him to arise only to test the many, as Daniel 11:35 states: ‘And some of the wise men will stumble, to try them, to refine, and to clarify until the appointed time, because the set time is in the future.'”
There are erroneous claims that the Rambam only eliminated “candidates” for Moshiach who were killed. In fact the Rambam’s statement in Kings and Wars, 11:5 eliminates as Moshiach ANYONE who died. It doesn’t matter how he died.
Claims that the Rambam only eliminated as candidates for Moshiach men who were killed is replacement theology. It seems that Chabad censors are folliwing in the desperate tracks of the Christian censors.
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?
Chabad has every right to practice their own minhagim (customs).
Chabad does not have a right to invent their own new “halachot” and then attack non-Chabad religious Jews for violating those alleged “halachot”.
Many uninformed but well meaning Jews have no idea that many of Chabad’s “halachic” practices have no sources in normative Jewish law or else contradict normative Jewish law.
attempts to impose Chabad’s radical Kabbalistic practices onto non-Chassidim in the name of a falsified “halacha”.
The bizarre pamphlet linked above claims that “the beard represents the essential image of man”. However, some animals can have beards, such as goats, dogs and monkeys, so IMHO the claim in the pamphlet about beards is absurd!
In the Talmud, Hagiga 16a it mentions 3 characteristics of humans that resemble angels: humans have understanding, they walk erect, and they can speak.
The book attempts to claim that trimming one’s beard with scissors is an “issur gomur” (absolutely prohibited).
In fact the book is blatantly dishonest as it does not seem to cite anywhere the normative halachic viewpoint of the Shulchan Aruch, based on multiple statements from the Talmud.
The Jewish law code clearly states that a man is allowed to trim his beard with scissors:
“אינו חייב על השחתת פאת הזקן אלא בתער אבל במספרים מותר אפילו כעין תער:” (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 181:10)
Chabad propaganda may often claim that Chabad is “non-judgemental”.
But in fact Chabad is impugning many non-Chassidim as alleged transgressors for simply following the Shulchan Aruch instead of adopting radical Kabbalistic practices.
The Torah scholar Rav David Bar-Hayim, whom I believe is a greater Torah scholar than the Chabad rebbes, stated in the video linked below:
“this claim that one should not trim his beard at all, that the beard should be allowed to grow wild forever, is not based on any halachic source whatever…”
As we have mentioned on this site, certain Chabad radicals are attempting to replace classical Torah theology with their own falsified, nonTorah theologies.In this video, the Chabad theologian claims that the Beit HaMikdash will first come to 770 (Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn), and then it will be transported to Isr
Chabad Replacement Theology (3)
As we have mentioned on this site, certain Chabad radicals are attempting to replace classical Torah theology with their own falsified, non-Torah theologies.
In this video, the Chabad theologian claims that the Beit HaMikdash will first come to 770 (Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn), and then it will be transported to Israel!
I do not believe there is the slightest source in authentic Judaism for such an outrageous claim that the Beit HaMikdash will first come to Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn.
In the video, the Chabad theologian is ironically discussing Christian “replacement theology”.
It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous “replacement theology” than what we’re seeing in the current Chabad movement.
Traditional Judaism is in serious trouble today.
Because a “rabbi” has a long beard, a black hat, and practices “Kabbalistic” minhagim, one should not automatically assume he is teaching authentic Judaism.
If we see a Jewish leader…influences the Jews to follow the ways of the Torah. Who is Moshiach. The article on the Chabad site distorts and modifies Maimonides’ (Rambam) words about Moshiach to subtly convince us or suggest to us that a deceased rabbi in Brooklyn could have been or is the Moshiach now.Rambam descri
Chabad Replacement Theology (2)
“If we see a Jewish leader…influences the Jews to follow the ways of the Torah” Who is Moshiach
The article on the Chabad site distorts and modifies Maimonides’ (Rambam) words about Moshiach to subtly convince us or suggest to us that a deceased rabbi in Brooklyn could have been or is the Moshiach now.
Rambam describes the true Moshiach in his Mishneh Torah compendium of all Jewish laws.
“In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty.” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Melachim 11:1) According to Rambam, Moshiach is a KING, not just a “leader” as the Chabad article claims.
A Jewish King must be a LIVING Jewish man in the Land of Israel. Nowhere does the Rambam state that Moshiach could be a person presently deceased. The Rambam clearly indicates that any person who has died, as did the kings of Israel who died, cannot be Moshiach.
“A king may not be appointed except by the High Court of 71 judges.” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Sanhedrin 5:1). When did the Sanhedrin ever appoint the Chabad rebbe as Moshiach???
“Moshiach will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Melachim 11:5) When did the deceased Chabad rebbe ever compel ALL the Jews to follow the Torah?
Chabad “Meshichists” promote the false notion that the Chabad rebbe is NOW Moshiach, or else he will reappear as Moshiach in the future.
The Chabad rebbe never accomplished the tasks specified by the Rambam that Moshiach must accomplish, so the Chabad “Meshichistin” are forced to claim a “second coming” of the rebbe.
The Chabad Meshichist arguments are no different than the deceptive arguments of Xtian missionaries.
There is NO place in authentic Torah beliefs for a Moshiach who appears, begins his mission, then he dies and returns later to finish his mission.
Those interested in such a “Moshiach” should consult the NT.
The present situation tragically resembles the origins of another “messianic” religion that sprung up 2000 years ago.
Chabad missionaries utilize similar techniques as Xtian missionaries by misinterpreting classical Jewish religious sources and replacing them with Chabad theology.A Chabad missionary in the video below tries to claim that the Chabad rebbe is physically alive based on the certain Torah sources that the righteous in thei
Chabad Replacement Theology (1)
Chabad missionaries utilize similar techniques as Xtian missionaries by misinterpreting classical Jewish religious sources and replacing them with Chabad theology.
A Chabad missionary in the video below tries to claim that the Chabad rebbe is physically alive based on the certain Torah sources that “”the righteous in their deaths are CALLED alive””.
“Does going to the ohel (Tomb of the Chabad Rebbe) contradict believing that the Rebbe is physically alive?”
However authentic Torah sources such as Berakhot 18a do NOT state that the righteous, after death, are PHYSICALLY alive, rather they are CALLED alive. After their death, they are CALLED alive due to the “”righteous mighty deeds”” they performed while they were alive so that they merit a share in the World to Come.
“”…these are the righteous, who even in their death are called living.””
TORAH METAPHYSICS 