World of Truth

R'Tzvi Freeman is one of my favourite writers on the Chabad.org website. A couple of years ago I exchanged some emails with him regarding some theological statements in the Tanya, the magnum oppus of Chabad chassidus. This is part one, stay tuned.

===

Dear R' Freeman

I have been a long time subscriber to your Daily Dose email. Your
poetic words fill me with a deep appreciation for life and service of
Hashem. I have a question that has been bothering me for a while which
I would like your insight on.

It is regarding a statement made in the first chapter of Tanya.

"The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the
other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever, as is written
in Etz Chayim, Portal 40, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations
do, is done out of selfish motives. Since their nefesh emanates from
kelipot which contain no good, it follows that any good done by them
is for selfish motives. So the Gemara comments on the verse, "The
kindness of the nations is sin" — that all the charity and kindness
done by the nations of the world is only for their
self-glorification…"

The above statement bothers me on a multitude of levels. How can we
condemn the entire of mankind, millions of decent, honourable, ethical
people with such a designation? How can we condemn millions of people
just because they do belong to our own religion in such a fashion? It
is true we have been oppressed and tortured in the past, but does that
mean that everyone is guilty? How do you reconcile this statement with
the entire corpus of Jewish thought which you so eloquently put out on
a daily basis? Where is the love for mankind, a brotherhood of
humanity in the above statement?

I look forward to your response on this matter, as this is something
that bothers me tremendously.

Regards,

Rael Levinsohn
Sydney, Australia

=====
Dear Rael,

You are not the only one with this question. Personally, I couldn't live with the idea that only Jews have any good within them. I will copy here that which I have written to others previously. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions after reading this:

First of all, you have to realize that there is no new dogma in the Tanya. The Tanya comes to enlighten us about ideas that are found in classic Judaism, as you see the citation from the Gemarra. The whole issue about the souls of non-Jews comes up in the Kuzari, the Maharal, the Arizal and many other important works.

The Tanya explains to us the Arizal's point of view. According to the Arizal, everything that exists has a spark of G_dliness within it–only that this spark may be very hidden. Sometimes it is so hidden that this thing becomes totally self-centered, unable to do anything that it does not benefit from.

In most parlance, this is not called evil. This is called how human beings operate. Psychology, sociology–all the human sciences are based on the premise that whatever we do, we do to avoid pain and/or receive pleasure. Truly, 99% of the mitzvahs that the common Jew does falls in the same category.

But in the parlance of the Arizal and the Tanya, this is called evil or klipah and sitra achra–the opposite side of holiness. The Tanya doesn't put anyone down–it simply raises the bar.

Nevertheless, within every human being there is a spark of true good. After all, as the Torah repeats four times in Genesis, and again in the Mishnah, all human beings are made in "the image of G_d." If anyone knows of the equality and dignity of all human beings, they got it from one source and one source alone and that is the Torah.

The job of the Jew is to release that spark. And in those non-Jews who are Bnai Noach, there is already a certain redemption of that holiness. This should answer what you write about the "average American today". As the Rebbe spoke, we have already succeeded in the birur of Esau. Western civilization since the Reformation is really nothing more than goyim acting like Jews.

(Although, I must add this: When we gather all the nations of the world together what do they resolve? That Israel must be condemned. And not just Africa and Asia, but Europe believes so, as well. And in Washington, the State Department never let go of its animosity, continuing today into James Baker's nefarious ploy to sidestep and sabotage Israel. From the Rebbe's perspective, the birur is complete. From our perspective, it seems there is still much to be done.)

So what is the relation of Jews and non-Jews? Look at it this way: For an ordinary Jew to discover and awaken the spark within, he needs a tzadik, as explained in chapter 2 of Tanya. Quite simply, what the tzadik is to the Jew, the Jew is to the non-Jew.

The non-Jew recognizes this, albeit in a distorted manner. Paul Johnson describes anti-semitism as "patricide". Thomas Cahill, an Irishman, writes that the non-Jew hates the Jew because he reminds him of G_d. In fact, they worship a Jew–a tortured, agonized Jew. They got it right and wrong all at once.

A common accusation is that Judaism is racism. This simply doesn't work. Jews are not a race. They come in all colors–white, black, brown and yellow. There are no racial distinctions on who can become a Jew. Furthermore, ask yourself: Is there any other faith that says you don't have to become one of us in order to have a share in the world to come? Believe what you want, eat what you want, smoke what you want–as long as you keep the basic rules of Noach, you're in.

Again, let me know if this helps.

–Rabbi Tzvi Freeman for Chabad.org

Chabad Theology is something I hope to post a lot more on, however this response by R'Simon Jacobson should make a good start.

R'Jacobson,

There are a couple of concerns I have of late with Chabad theology.

The following websites cover the issues I am referring to:

http://rebbegod.blogspot.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/824393.html

Clearly this issue, of incarnation, deification, blurring the lines between man and G-d touch at the bedrock foundations of our faith.

Since you are an authoritative voice in the Chabad world, would you be able to please pen a response to the above as I think this is something that many people are concerned about.

With your permission I would like to post it on my blog emet.blog-city.com

Looking forward to your response on this matter,

Regards,

Rael Levinsohn

==============
Hi Rael,

Thanks for writing about this issue that concerns you and so many others. I looked at the links you sent me. Briefly, allow me to say that these statements made as if they were facts have NO basis in Torah (and by extension Chabad theology, which is nothing but Torah). Indeed, they are CONTRARY to Torah. Anyone mouthing them is both ignorant and uneducated, not to mention irresponsible.

Jewish faith believes that there is one and only one G-d. We need no intermediaries to access G-d. The role of a Tzaddik is to serve as a transparent channel, being a completely selfless role model embodying what it means to live a G-dly life. He therefore is called an "ish Elokim," a man of G-d, or a G-dly man. The Torah says (Exodus 14:31) that the Jews "believed in G-d and in Moses His servant," and the Midrash Mechilta equates the two, saying that one who does not believe in Moses is as if he does not believe in G-d. But this does not in any way mean, G-d forbid, that there is anything but one G-d; it simply means that due to his absolute and total bittul, selflessness, Moses was a true servant and messenger of G-d, to be trusted and believed in. This is the entire basis why we accept the words of Moses — and his successors — as the word of G-d. As the Mishne in Pirkei Avot delineates the mesorah-transmission of Torah: Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the elders, the elders to the prophets, etc. This explains the role of a Tzaddik and a Rebbe: To teach Torah and serve as a selfless example — to people who may be consumed with their own egos and distracted by the materialism of life — of how to live a G-dly existence.

Therefore, the reckless statements made by some individuals which go against Torah and Chabad theology, do not deserve to be addressed. The only reason why I addressed them is because of your question and those of many others.
You have my permission to post this on your blog. I will also send you an an article I wrote on the topic, which may add clarity to the issue, and you may also post.

Blessings and best wishes,

Simon Jacobson