Heresy accusations have a way of returning with a vengeance. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch was known by some as a heresy hunter. He harshly attacked historians such as R. Zechariah Frankel and Hirsch’s one-time protege Heinrich Graetz. He even attacked as heresy an essay by the halakhist, R. David Tzvi Hoffmann. In an ironic historical twist, one of R. Hirsch’s essays was attacked as heretical (or, implausibly, a forgery) in the Slifkin Torah-Science Affair a few years ago.
A recent debate in an educational forum (link) about the propriety of teaching kabbalah in yeshiva high schools led to a debate over the theological soundness of kabbalah and, in particular, the founding treatise of Chabad Chassidus, the Tanya. This debate about the Tanya is hardly new. Indeed, the charges were first raised by none other than the Vilna Gaon. (Note that R. Eliyahu of Vilna is also known as the Gra and Vilna Gaon. R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi is also known as the Alter Rebbe and Ba’al Ha-Tanya.)
After an impostor posing as the Vilna Gaon’s son claimed that his “father” had reversed his negative evaluation of Chassidus, the elderly sage issued a letter in 1796 denying a change of heart. After the authenticity of this letter was questioned, the Vilna Gaon in 1797 issued another letter detailing his problems with the movement. The letter was circulated and published the next year in the Slutzker Maggid’s book and many times since. I take it from Mordechai Willensky’s Chassidim U-Misnagdim (Mossad Bialik, 2nd ed. vol. 1 p. 187ff.). In the middle of his list of accusations against Chassidim, written in flowery rabbinic Hebrew, the Vilna Gaon states (p. 188, in loose translation):
דור מה רמו עניו, ומילין לצד עלאה מללו: אלה אלקיך ישראל, כל עץ וכל אבן, ומגלים פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה בפסוק: ברוך כבוד ה׳ ממקומו, ובפסוק: ואתה מחיה את כולם. הוי על הרום הרעים שבהם שבדו מלבם משפט חדש ואולפין חדת, ושתו תלמידים הבאים אחריהם, ושם שמים מתחלל על ידיהם…
Oh how the generation lifted its eyes and spoke words directed above: “This is your god, Israel” (Ex. 32:8), every tree and rock. They reveal the Torah contrary to law in the verse: “Blessed is the glory of God from His place” (Ez. 3:12) and in the verse: “And you preserve them all” (Ne. 9:6).
As Willensky points out in his footnotes, these are accusations of heresy. The Vilna Gaon charges Chassidim with believing in panentheism, that God is present in everything, even inanimate objects. The Tanya (2:Yichud Ve-Emunah:1) states that God is present in inanimate objects and in this next chapter explains Ne. (9:6) similarly. It also explains (1:42) Ez. (3:12) in this manner.
It is not clear how the Vilna Gaon knew the contents of the as-yet unpublished Tanya. Historians suggest he saw an unpublished draft or an early printing. It is irrelevant because his understanding of Chabad philosophy was confirmed by the Ba’al Ha-Tanya. In an undated letter, first published in 1857 and then many times since, the Ba’al Ha-Tanya explains his philosophical disagreement with the Vilna Gaon.
The following is from his letter (Willensky, vol. 1 pp. 200-201, also in loose translation):
ולפי הנשמע אין במדינות ליטא מי שירום לבבו שלא לבטל דעתו מפני דעת הגאון החסיד ולאמר בפה מלא אין בפיהו נכונה ח״ו, כ״א במדינות הרחוקות כתוגרמא ואיטלייא ורוב אשכנז ופולין גדול וקטן. ובזאת חפצתי באמת, ובפרט בענין האמונה אשר לפי הנשמע במדינותינו מתלמידיו אשר זאת תפיסת הגאון החסיד על ס׳ ליקוטי אמרים ודומיו, אשר מפורש בהם פי׳ ממלא כל עלמין ולית אתר פנוי מיניה כפשוטו ממש, ובעיני כבודו היא אפיקורסות גמורה לאמר שהוא ית׳ נמצא ממש בדברים שפלים ותחתונים ממש, ולפי מכתב מעלתם ע״ז נשרף הספר הידוע, ובפירוש מאמרים הנזכרים יש להם דרך נסתרה ונפלאה, ומלא כל הארץ כבודו היינו השגחה וכו׳.
ומי יתן ידעתיו ואמצאהו ואערכה לפניו משפטינו להסיר מעלינו כל תלונותיו וטענותיו הפילוסופיות אשר הלך בעקבותיהם לפי דברי תלמידיו הנ״ל לחקור אלקות בשכל אנושי, וכאשר קבלתי מרבותי נ״ע תשובה נצחת על כל דבריו.
It is heard that no one in Lita will be so arrogant as to fail to submit to the Vilna Gaon’s view and say openly that he was wrong, only in distant lands like Turkey, Italy, most of Germany and Poland major and minor. This is what I truly want, particularly in matters of faith that, according to what is heard in these lands from his students, that this is what he thought about the Tanya and similar: They say explicitly that the meaning of “He fills all the worlds and there is no place empty of Him” literally. In the Vilna Gaon’s eyes it is complete heresy to say that God exists literally in mundane, lower things…. [In his view] these sayings have a hidden meaning, that God’s providence fills the world, etc.
If only I could find him and arrange my case before him to remove all of his philosophical complaints, which according to his students followed in his study of God with his human intellect, as I have received from my teachers successful responses to all his words….
The Ba’al Ha-Tanya continues to base his views on the Arizal and Zohar. He also claims that the Vilna Gaon did not believe that all of the Arizal’s kabbalah all came from Eliyahu, much of it originating with the Arizal’s genius and therefore subject to rejection. (The truth of this claim is certainly disputed but irrelevant to our current discussion.)
We see that the Ba’al Ha-Tanya accepts the Vilna Gaon’s description of his views as panentheism. However, he defends this theological view as authentically Jewish while the Vilna Gaon rejects them as heresy.
In particular, the Ba’al Ha-Tanya portrays himself as the defender of tradition and the Vilna Gaon as the radical philosopher, the innovative theologian trying to determine on his own the nature of God.
I do not care to decide between these two great scholars. In my circles, we value the works of both without deeming either heretical. In particular, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, an intellectual descendant of the Vilna Gaon, strongly recommended studying the Tanya.
What I find most interesting is that the Vilna Gaon himself accused the Rambam of being misled by his philosophical pursuits (Bi’ur Ha-Gra to Yoreh De’ah 179:13, see Jacob Dienstag’s article on this in Talpiot, July 1949). Eventually, the Vilna Gaon was accused of the very same thing. History’s irony continues.
See also this post: Reflections on Returning from an Uncle Moishy Concert
“emma: I agree that this is a historical post. How is that bad?” its misleading but might be right anyway.
“Aw on January 3, 2013 at 9:44 am
First of all it is important to note that this has nothing to do with Chabad in particular. These ideas and the Baal HaTanya are accepted by ALL the contemporary chassidic world.”
I am not sure that is true. Lubavitchers may want to believe that is so. Just like they claim that Yud tes Kislev is ‘Rosh Hashanah Lachasidus’ but in reality, is basically just a Lubavitcher holiday, like the recently added Lubavitcher Hei Teves holiday, not followed by other Chasidim.
Do other Chasidim learn and place a stress on Tanya the way Lubavitchers do? The answer is very clear – no! Lubavitchers say it is the ‘Torah shebiksav’ of Chasidus’ and it is taught to youngsters, women…Maybe some other Chasidim learn it, but nowhere near the extent that Lubavitchers do.
Lubavitchers like to believe that they are the highest, most pure form, and vanguard of the Chasidic movement, but other Chasidim differ.
“The author you quoted above and have a link to has since retracted his opinion as can be seen on his blog and he has even begun to write a commentary on Tanya.”
I looked at his blog, and it is true that he stepped back from what he originally wrote somewhat. However, he still says that the Tanya says things different than the Etz Chaim of the Arizal. See e.g. http://mekubal.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/rav-kaduris-position-of-tanya-my-current-understanding/
“Shmuel on January 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm
What a relief. I thought this was going to be another case of “flogging a dead horse”. The Chasidim/Misnagdim machloket has been over for a very long time, and it’s a shame when people try to rehash the old issues.”
Huh? Do you learn mishnah? Gemara? If so, you are rehashing old machlokes all the time. Do להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה and דרוש וקבל שכר mean something to you?
You say “Chasidim/Misnagdim machloket has been over for a very long time” – I believe that you are making the error here of conflating two different things. One is what is sometimes called the active phase of the machlokes from 200 plus years ago, when there was banning and cheirem. That came to an end, when the Russian government ordered that Chasidim be accepted and things died down. Then the two sides made common cause against Reform and haskalah and differences were played down. However, there remained and remain to this day, differences in belief and practice between the groups. While they may not be as prominent and visible now as at times in the past, they still exist.
The difference between chabad and other chassidim is that chabad take everything seriously. In Rizhin they say gimmel cheshvan is yom kippur. I never saw anyone wear a kittel because of it. Chabad take their rosh hashana as seriously as a mitzva derabonon.
The Gra’s successor, R’ Chaim Volozhin, was mevatel the cherem and moreover, wrote a sefer Nefesh Hachaim, which directly borrows from the shitos of the Alter Rebbe as opposed to the Gra. The philosophical debate has been over since that generation, but people like you continue to revive long dead machloikisim.
Worse still is that in this weakest and most ignorant of generations, you are planting doubts about shomrei Torah uMitzvos, maaminim bnei maaminim. Shame on you.
a few points and apologies for not being able to provide all the references id like to but alas sitting ib a hospital with only a phone has its limitations…
jon baker the story you quoted about the Gra running away to avoid meeting the AR is not chabad urban myth as u seem to suggest but was related by RJBS at a public gathering in boston IIRC was yud tes kislev . there is arecording of the speech available on net,
here is the link of RJBS relating story of GRA avoiding meeting AR i mentioned earlier
http://download.bcbm.org/Media/RavSoloveitchik/MachshavaOther/Chabad_and_Gaon_19_Kislev_1969.mp3
there is a lengthy letter from the LR detailing 4 opinions on tzimtzum and the LR proves that R chaim volozin does not agree with opinion of GRA and goes one step closer to opinion of AR though does not agree fully with AR
here is english translation
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/92968/jewish/An-analysis-of-different-approaches-regarding-tzimtzum-the-process-of-Divine-self-limitation.htm
in torah shleima from R Kasher in hashlomos at back i think of Shmos he has a legthy discussion on the machlokes of GRA and AR and iirc brings several clear proofs for opinion of AR
Re R Dessler, fair to assume his views may have been influenced by famous chabad chosid r itche der masmid who spent alot of time together. this has been discussed at length on the blogosphere, search and you shall find.
“Chosid on January 4, 2013 at 12:40 am
The Gra’s successor, R’ Chaim Volozhin, was mevatel the cherem”
Where did you get that from? Not true.
R. Soloveitchik z”l was a great man, but he is not representative of mainstream Litvak thinking, particularly when it comes to Lubavitch. As mentioned above, he was compromised by his Lubavitcher melamed at a young age, who, against the state wishes of his father R. Moshe, taught him Tanya (by the way, I challenge any of the Lubavitchers here to admit that the Lubavitcher melamed was wrong in doing so). So therefore, even if he made statements as alleged above, they are not necessarily authoritative.
*stated wishes
The post title is sensational; it can also be titled: “Was the Gra a Heretic?”… (for holding – according to some – עזב ה’ את הארץ…)
In perspective of history the Ba’al Ha-Tanya ‘won’ this argument:
The Nefesh HaChaim doesn’t accept the position of his teacher regarding tzimtzum. His position mostly accedes to that of the Tanya.
R. Dessler has gone as far as trying to reconcile this machlokes – by aligning, or revising, the opinion of the Gra to fit ‘mainstream’ kabbalah.
See the letter of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe on the subject.
“In perspective of history the Ba’al Ha-Tanya ‘won’ this argument”
Yes, how true. The Rebbe, descendant of the Baal Ha-Tanya viHAshulchan Aruch, is called nosi hador and not Rav Soloveichik. Go into 770 and it says yechi the Rebbe, and not the Rav (not even in YU do you see yechi the Rav signs). Of course the Rebbe won!
“The Nefesh HaChaim doesn’t accept the position of his teacher regarding tzimtzum. His position mostly accedes to that of the Tanya.”
A debatable claim-some belief that Rav Hayyim Volozhin accepted the details of R Schneur Zalmans exposition of tzimtzum-certainly Chabad and the Lubavitcher Rebbe have made that claim, others including I believe the Rav don’t accept that position but rather that the Nefesh Hachayim accepted the essentials of the Gaons position of tzimzum but adapted certain details of RSZalmans exposition.
I think there is some very important context missing here.
1) The traditional Jewish belief was – and still is – that such esoteric, theological, and kabbalistic matters, are not for the masses, and are restricted to older, advanced scholars. It was known, that great problems (e.g. Sabbatean – Sabbetai Zevi – movement and Frankists) can come from the masses not on such levels getting into such material. Chassidic works like the Tanya broke with this tradition, and this bothered the opponents of the Chassidim. They maintained that the human intellect is limited and certain things should not be focused on, as the ancient Rabbis taught us.
In hindsight we can see that they were right to be so concerned, as the Lubavitch community, where Tanya is concentrated on most, is the one hit hard with cases of very problematic related beliefs, such as the Rebbe being (chas veshalom) ‘atzmus umahus baguf’ (G-d in a body), advocating a deceased person as messiah, and praying to a human being, among others, more than elsewhere.
2) There is a stress here on the meaning of מלא כל הארץ כבודו. But there also needs to be a way to understand ברוך כבוד ה’ ממקומו as part of this puzzle, to get the full picture. To explain one without the other can leave things out of whack.
The following mentions the Gra’s approach to Habad specifically:
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-ask-the-rav/31-general/424-the-false-mashiah-of-lubavitch-habad
Everyone agrees that revealing kabbalistic concepts to the masses is not ideal. The leaders of chasidim realized though that we are not living in ideal times. They felt it necessary to reveal chassidus specifically in their generation , a generation much lower that all the prior generations, because only this would give strength to Am Yisroel to withstand the tests and nisyonos of the time and our time.
The proof is in the pudding. It was only the chasidim who in large numbers were able to withstand the haskala and be moser nefesh for Judaism in communist Russia. (Of course this is not a blanket rule but see kisvei chofetz chaim coming next) The chofetz Chaim calls the chassidim an iron wall protecting true Judaism from haskala (see the back of kisvei chofetz chaim the part were his son brings down things his father told him). Lubavitcher chasidim were the ones moser nefesh to teach Alef beis to children in communist Russia many sent to Siberia and killed because of this. It is known that many litvisher would only trust chasidik melamdim for their children because they knew they would not be tainted by haskala. Hence the ravs father sending him to a chasidic
Melamed. And Rav shlomo eiger the son of Rav akiva eiger sending his son to a chasidic yeshiva (and he became a chasidic rebbe reb laibele eiger). So yes there are dangers but it was felt and was proven to be true there is no choice. There is less danger following chassidus than not following it.
… Of course this is not an excuse for anyone and everyone will be held accountable in shomayim ….
I think AW takes the prize for offensive and self-aggrandizing historical inaccuracies.
I think you deserve the prize. Speak to any frum litvisher from Europe (like my old rebbe) and he will tell you the same thing ( the history part ) also see for yourself the kisvei chofetz Chaim.
Actually your right I should also get the prize. I noticed I wrote “it was proven to be true” obviously this cant exactly be considered a proof. the other side of the argument would not consider this a proof. My bad.
First of all, you’re using “chassidim” and “Lubavitch” interchangeably. There are other chassidim, you know.
Secondly, you write as if haskalah was some inherent evil. It isn’t, of course. There were and are lots of frum maskilim.
Next, you overinflate Chabad’s role in Russia and causes for it. There were few other Jews in Russia proper to begin. 90% of Litvaks were killed while only 50% of Hungarians were. Of course, lots of people left pre or post war.
As I wrote above, the Rav’s father sent him to a Chabad melamed because it was a Chabad town- there was no one else. When he found he was learning Tanya, he pulled him out and taught him himself.
That’s representative of your “facts.”
I should, however, say that the story of how the Rav received regards from his melamed fifty years later is one of the most touching I’ve ever heard.
I was surprised by the tabloid-style heading to this article. It seemed beneath the caliber of the usually intellectual level of this website.
Would you title an article, “Is the Gr”a a Heretic”?
It seems that for a bit of attention this ‘blog’ is willing to vilify large segments of klal yisroel, finding them an easier target than say the Gra, R’ Yonasan Eibshitz, Ramchal, Rambam who have all been called heretics by other gedolim.
Current Orthodox belief in the oneness of Hashem sharply disagrees with the Gra’s view. We have [starting with R' Chaim Volozhin] repudiated the Gr”a on his main criticism of Chassidus.
I am continuously surprised by the Chabad reaction to (just) the title of this post. They seem to be totally unaware that there are still plenty of Misnagdim who ask such questions, honestly and without malice. I think you should take this as an opportunity to venture beyond your circle into the wider Yeshiva community, where many different viewpoints on such issues exist.
The acceptance of Chabad within the broader Orthodox community is not a given and has been losing ground over the last twenty years. Reach out and you may be able to further unite Torah Jewry.
Dovid,
I have to protest your comment. In no way is it accurate to say that mainstream orthodoxy “sharply disagrees” with the view of the Gaon about Divine unity, let alone that Gaon’s foremost student does.
The first claim is self-evidently ludicrous, the second can be disproved both by common sense and by a close reading of the Nefesh HaChaim. Claims by certain sects otherwise are baseless.
Yes it is just the title of this post that is offensive. Putting a picture of the Baal hatanya next to the words heresy is offensive to many. I dont think this would be considered appropriate by Rav Vozner, or Rav Nissin Karelitz or Rav Chaim kinevsky. These are the leaders of non chassidic Jewry yet they all signed on a recent kol korei encouraging the study of the Ravs shulchan oruch. On the kol korei the Baal hatanya is called “Rav hadome lmalach hashem tzevakos ” and “kiechod meiHarishonim”.
http://www.col.org.il/show_news.rtx?fromAdmin=yes&artID=73375
Actually the acceptance of Chabad in the broader frum community is only growing. Sales of seforim of Chabad chassidus is growing and attracting people from large segments of the community. This is especially true in Israel check out these photos to see the range of people attending events commemorating the Baal hatanya
http://www.col.org.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93_%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9C_%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%95_%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%A7_72617.html
http://www.col.org.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93_%D7%99%D7%98_%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%95_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%96%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D_72660.html
http://www.col.org.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94_%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%94_72642.html
Aa: “Rav Nissin Karelitz or Rav Chaim kinevsky. These are the leaders of non chassidic Jewry yet they all signed on a recent kol korei encouraging the study of the Ravs shulchan oruch. On the kol korei the Baal hatanya is called “Rav hadome lmalach hashem tzevakos ” and “kiechod meiHarishonim”.
http://www.col.org.il/show_news.rtx?fromAdmin=yes&artID=73375”
1) The poster shows his ignorance and disrespect by mangling the names of the non Lubavitch gedolim. Displaying common Lubavitch illiteracy in that and other ways.
2) If you will go to the link posted you will see that it says הרב הדומה למלאך וכו – however, the story states that those words were added in by hand by the Belzer Rebbe – so may not have been in the text the Litvishe leaders were shown. Which in general raises the question of what the Litvishe leaders saw, if they actually signed such a thing (the thing is printed and not hand written). It may well have been altered after they signed it (if they actually did so).
3) The tactics of Lubavitch are well known. They are trying to break out of the ostracism and isolation they have been in in recent years, esp. in the Litvish oriented Torah world, which intensified after they plunged into open messianism and fighting toward the end of the life of the Rebbe and continuing to this day. They try to seize on occasions like the two hundredth yahrtzeit of their first Rebbe and other things to pose as mainstream frum Yidden. As time goes by, the memory of some of their messianic excesses (which still continue, cf 770), are forgotten by some and they think they can regain ground lost due to the passing of Moreinu hagadol Rav Schach zt”l with new propaganda campaigns.
But the mesorah of המנהיג הגדול, לוחם מלחמות השי”ת למען האמונה הטהורה המסורה לנו מדור דור, הרה”ג והרה”צ מרן רב אלעזר מנחם מן שך זצוקלה”ה and other true gedolim is still alive and well and people will not be fooled, even if Lubavitch sometimes succeeds in duping some Litvaks here and there. Oy, how we miss Rav Schach today. What a great leader, who spoke the truth.מי יתן לנו תמורתו. בתפלה שהשי”ת ירחם עלינו ויושיענו במהרה
Ah, so the truth comes out. How we long for the days of machlokes. How we hate when people try to get together.
Aa: You want to get together?
I challenge you, and other Lubavitchers, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan,
Mr. Lubavitch: Tear down that Yechi sign!
I tear down any yechi signs I can get my hands on.
I’m not a Chabad hater. All I’m saying is that the perspectives on Chabad are very different from the outside, even from what Lubavitchers say is going on on the outside. It’s not that everyone is out to get Chabad or that everyone loves Chabad. There are many different types of relationships.
Although I don’t know anyone who does not consider the Ba’al HaTanya a great tzadik and talmid chakham.
I can agree to that. I’m not accusing you of Chabad hating. It just got my adrenalin going seeing the words heresy next to the Baal hatanya. Just my emotional issue I guess.
“Rav Vozner, or Rav Nissin Karelitz or Rav Chaim kinevsky. These are the leaders of non chassidic Jewry yet they all signed on a recent kol korei encouraging the study of the Ravs shulchan oruch.”
They are choshuveh gedolim, but a) they don’t speak for all non Chassidic Jewry, and b) astute people realize that they may have been pestered to sign without being told the hidden agenda behind it (to break down the important mechitzos between their followers and Lubavitch). Since these are gedolim whose time is so important, who don’t want to waste any of it from תורה ומצות, they may have gone along, just to get rid of those who who were bothering them and wasting their time, and be able to return to לימוד תורתנו הקדושה.
Let’s see you get an Eretz Yisroel Brisker (from משפחת הגרי”ז) to sign on. They can sniff out your true intentions from far away.
Rav Shach was on the mark regarding the dangerous messianism encouraged by Rav Schneerson.