Debunking Chabad Philosophers

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?”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6LfO1wfudA

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?

CHABAD REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY (4)

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.

https://www.chabadspringfield.com/the-rebbe-as-moshiach

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:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/101744/jewish/Laws-Concerning-Kings-and-the-Messiah.htm

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.

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 nonChabad seforim, with the implication that Chabad seforim such as Tanya already contain the teachings of the previous (classical) Torah sages.

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: Meshichist Shell Game

Chabad Meshichists are a significant group within the Chabad movement who aggressively missionize among Jews to convince them that the deceased Chabad rebbe IS Moshiach now.The Chabad Meshichist shell game can be a slippery slope to a new Xtianity.The shell game works as follows. . Chabad Meshichistin will argue aggres

Classical Torah vs Chabad: Meshichist Shell Game

Chabad Meshichists are a significant group within the Chabad movement who aggressively missionize among Jews to convince them that the deceased Chabad rebbe IS Moshiach now.

The Chabad Meshichist shell game can be a slippery slope to a new Xtianity.

The shell game works as follows.

Chabad Meshichistin will argue aggressively that Moshiach could arise from a dead person and then attempt to bring Torah sources to prove that is a legitimate Torah position.

The Meshichistin will indignantly deny any connection between their beliefs and Christianity, and they will impute ignorance to their opponents.

The Meshichistin may also utilize absurd “red herring” type diversions such as accusing their opponents of violating halacha by trimming their beards.
However, the issue of one’s minhag in regard to trimming one’s beard has absolutely nothing to do with discussions about Moshiach.

It appears likely the Meshichistin are radically distorting Torah sources that discuss whether Moshiach could arise from a dead person, but that becomes irrelevant in any case.

The Meshichistin are NOT simply claiming that Moshiach could arise from a dead person.

In this shell game, the Chabad Meshichistin are really claiming that:

The Chabad Rebbe, when he was living, began his mission as the Moshiach.
The Chabad Rebbe appears to have died but actually he only disappeared from vision.
The Chabad Rebbe IS the Moshiach NOW.
The Chabad Rebbe will reappear to complete his mission.
Some of the Meshichistin are even claiming publicly that the Rebbe is Hashem in human form!

The Meshichistin Torah distortions and deceptions can be easily debunked using valid Torah sources.

The Rambam’s 12th Ikkar (principle) of his 13 principles is that Moshiach will be a living king in Israel who rules over Israel and the world.

The Rambam explicitly stated in Hilchos Melachim 11:5 that Jewish Kings who have died can no longer be considered the Moshiach promised by the Torah.

Of course the Chabad Rebbe was never a king and it is well known that the Chabad Rebbe did not have any children.

Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 4:8 wrote that Moshiach will have SONS (ulbanav):
הַמֶּלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ נוֹטֵל מִכָּל הָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכּוֹבְשִׁין יִשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר. וְדָבָר זֶה חֹק לוֹ וּלְבָנָיו עַד עוֹלָם:
“The King Messiah may procure for himself 1/13th of all the lands conquered by Israel. This is a law for him and his SONS (emphasis added), forever. “

However, when we checked the Chabad dot org site (a while back ago), Hilchot Melachim 4:8 was translated as “descendants” instead of SONS!

There are NO sources in authentic Torah Judaism for the Chabad Meshichist concept of a Moshiach who begins his mission, then he dies, but he continues to be Moshiach, and then reappears to continue his mission.

The only sources for such a “Moshiach” might be the New Testament!

If a Chabad chassid tells you that Moshiach can come from the dead, ask him to clarify what he really means by that.

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 (permanentl

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:

Based on the classical Torah sources mentioned above, man cannot at all comprehend God’s essence.
“Filling”, ie occupying physical space, is a physical property. God has no physical properties and cannot be described as occupying space.
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).
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: The Natural Order

Certain Chabad rabbis seem to aggressively but erroneously critique nonChassidic 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 mak

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: Age of the Universe

The prior Chabad Rebbe ztl (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 exis

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.

Classical Torah Vs. Chabad: Does God Have Parts?

In the second chapter of Chabad’s sefer Tanya there is a rather problematic statement . “The second soul of a Jew is truly a part of God above (chelek Elokai m’maal)…” . The Torah teaches that God created Man “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26). As explained by the great rabbinic commentator Sforno, this

Classical Torah Vs. Chabad: Does God Have Parts?

In the second chapter of Chabad’s sefer Tanya there is a rather problematic statement –

“The second soul of a Jew is truly a part of God above (chelek Elokai m’maal)…”

The Torah teaches that God created Man “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26). As explained by the great rabbinic commentator Sforno, this statement in the Torah indicates to us that Man is endowed with a unique attribute among all the living creatures, i.e. an immaterial intellectual apprehension that may resemble on a very small scale, God’s intellect. The Torah is only claiming that Man was created with a very limited resemblance to God, but it is NOT claiming that Man is “part” of God.

The Talmud, Tractate Berakhot 60b clearly teaches that a Jew’s soul was created by Hashem.
Therefore a Jew’s soul cannot be part of Hashem.

“כִּי מִתְּעַר אוֹמֵר: ״אֱלֹהַי, נְשָׁמָה שֶׁנָּתַתָּ בִּי טְהוֹרָה. אַתָּה יְצַרְתָּהּ בִּי, אַתָּה נְפַחְתָּהּ בִּי, וְאַתָּה מְשַׁמְּרָהּ בְּקִרְבִּי
When one awakens, he recites:
My God, the soul You have placed within me is pure.
You formed it within me,
You breathed it into me,
and You guard it while it is within me.”

Any concept of God having “parts” seems to have been rejected by most great classical rabbis, past and present. Hashem has no chelakim (parts) as the Rambam clearly expressed in the Rambam’s 2nd ikkar, and this is also expressed very clearly in Chovot HaLevavot, Shaar HaYichud, where it explains that anything composite must be physical.

In the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7, the Rambam clearly taught that Hashem is not subject to corporeal characteristics such as division into parts or separation from another object.

“וְהוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ גּוּף לֹא יֶאֶרְעוּ לוֹ מְאֹרְעוֹת הַגּוּפוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נֶחְלָק וְנִפְרָד מֵאַחֵר.
And, because He is incorporeal, none of the accidental traits characteristic of bodies can be attributed to Him, such as divisible into parts or separated from another object.”

For those who claim (likely incorrectly) that the Rambam knew no Kabbalah – the Ramchal lived in the 18th century, and he was certainly a great Kabbalist. Ramchal referred to the Rambam as the “great rabbi” and Ramchal echoed very closely the Rambam’s concepts of monotheism. The Ramchal in his sefer Daat Tevunot also rejects the concept of Hashem having any parts. The Ramchal does NOT say a Jewish soul is part of God, as the Ramchal accepts the Rambam’s 13 principles (paragraph two of Ramchal’s sefer Daat Tevunot). The Ramchal explained in Daat Tevunot, section 158 (Feldheim edition), that Jewish neshamot (souls) before they enter the body are chelek Elokai m’maal, meaning that they are a PORTION of God, i.e. they are attached to God on some level.

We thus see another example (in Tanya Chapter 2) of how various concepts in Chabad theology seem to radically conflict with non-Chabad classical Torah theologies. However, Chabad supporters are usually not accustomed to any critical examination of Chabad doctrines for internal or external contradictions. Chabad believers may simply claim that Chabad possesses some esoteric knowledge not possessed by the allegedly ignorant critics of Chabad who are allegedly not makpid (strict) like Chabad on allegedly Kabbalistic practices such as never trimming one’s beard.

A while back ago I had three interesting conversations on the question above. I discussed the following with two friends who study Chabad’s sefer Tanya: The blessing at the beginning of a standard Sidur “Elokai Neshama” states that Hashem created and fashioned the neshama. This blessing in the Sidur was originally stated by Chazal in the Talmud Tractate Berakhot, so it has very authentic roots. However, Chabad’s sefer Tanya (Chapter 2) seems to claim that a Jew’s neshama is “mamash” (truly) a part of God.

I asked my friends how can Tanya be reconciled with the “Elokai Neshama” that appears in the Sidur (and in the Talmud)? Are we forced to conclude that Hashem created Himself? I was not able to get a satisfactory answer to my question.

The sefer Nefesh HaChaim was written by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhyn, a great talmid of the Vilna Gaon, apparently as a rebuttal to certain claims in Chabad’s Tanya. In contrast, the sefer Nefesh HaChaim 1:15, seems to state that Hashem’s “atzmut” (essence) does NOT enter the body of an adam. We see here what seems to be just one of several major conflicts between Chabad’s Tanya and Nefesh HaChaim that has been largely ignored by certain Chabadniks who try to claim that Nefesh HaChaim is consistent with Chabad’s Tanya, and that all alleged conflicts were already resolved.

My sefer Nefesh HaChaim has a commentary written by a rav connected with a major Yeshiva. I called that rav a while back ago and discussed this issue. I understood the rav to say that a Jew’s neshama is NOT “atzmut” of Hashem, rather it’s an “atzilut” i.e. an emanation from Hashem. We do not connect Hashem’s “atzmut” with physical bodies or created beings, as this is a violation of monotheism.