A rebbe iz Atzmus uMahus vos hot zich areingeshtelt in a guf

Home Forums Controversial Topics A rebbe iz Atzmus uMahus vos hot zich areingeshtelt in a guf

Viewing 17 posts - 51 through 67 (of 67 total)
  • Author
  • #1824001

    K cup
    If you want an answer please be a sincere person and go to someone directly that can give an opinion and explain you what the Rebbe means.

    Not evey yankul todris has a right to have a opinion.

    I don’t know who you are, but please don’t give any explanation.

    Someone who just wants to ask to mock askes on the coffee room someone who is sincere ask sitting person.

    And again if you understand the points I posted earlier if will be a lot easier to understand. You can’t have an opinion if you don’t know the concepts.

    All I can do is to post the Rebbes words.

    דער אמת איז אבער ניט אזוי. כשם ווי ישראל אורייתא וקוב”ה כולא חד, ניט נאר וואָס ישראל מתקשרין באורייתא ואורייתא בקוב”ה, נאר טאקע חד ממש, אַזוי איז אויך די התקשרות פון חסידים מיטן רבי’ן, ניט ווי צוויי זאכן וואס פאראייניקן זיך, נאר עס ווערט כולא חד ממש. און דער רבי איז ניט קיין ממוצע המפסיק נאָר אַ ממוצע המחבר. במילא איז דאָך ביי אַ חסיד, ער מיט דעם רבין מיט דעם אויבערשטן איין זאך.

    איך האב עס ניט געזען עס זאל זיך אזוי ריידן מפורש אין חסידות נאָר עס איז אַ הרגש, במילא ווער עס וויל מרגיש זיין זאל מרגיש זיין און ווער ניט, וויל איך זיך מיט אים ניט שפּאַרן, יהי לו אשר לו.

    במילא איז דאָך ניט שייך צו פרעגן אַ קושיא וועגן אַ ממוצע, וויבאלד אַז דאָס איז עצומ”ה אַליין, ווי ער האָט זיך אריינגעשטעלט אין אַ גוף. ועל דרך מאמר הזהר °) מאן פני האדון דא רשב”י *) אָדער ווי, בעת השליחות איז אפילו מלאך נקרא בשם הוי’ *) אָדער ווי משה רבנו האָט געזאָגט ונתתי עשב.

    Anyone please feel free to learn the full sicha yourself and please learn it with someone that actually his opinion is worth something. (Like the Rabbi’s I mentioned in a previous post)

    I can say one thing that it definitely doesn’t mean the Rebbe is G-d ח”ו.

    Feel free to disagree like the Rebbes own words און ווער ניט, וויל איך זיך מיט אים ניט שפּאַרן, יהי לו אשר לו. And those that have questions, how would you explain מאן פני האדון דא רשב”י and why a malach is called with hashems name, and how is it possible that Moishe said ונתתי עשב.

    You can disagree, but you absolutely have no right to call Lubavichers koifrim or the Rebbe ח”ו (he said it on the frierdiker Rebbe).

    And to note many many gedoilim came to the Rebbe and spoke to him in person or in writing even after he said this.


    Without getting into too many details, the misunderstanding happened because of an equivocation of the concept עצמותו ומהותו. Outside of Chabad the term means God Himself, i.e. His essence, and that is how the term was always understood, by the Jewish philosophers. Thus when, for instance, the Rambam wrote God is unknowable in essence rather all that we can know is his existence, he meant that all we can know is ידיעת מציאתו ולא מהותו. [In regards to what the Rambam calls God שכל פשוט, he does mean a mind like ours, as he clearly states in direct opposition to Aristotle].

    It is precisely this point that the Maharal takes up with the Rambam, God is unknown in every sense and way and cannot be spoken of at all. A consequence of this was that even in Gods’ interactions with his creations is a secondary manner (I am not referring to השגחה, rather to the knowledge of Him). For instance according the Rambam we can know God negatively, i.e. via negitiva, but according to the Maharal we can’t). Following in his footsteps it became common practice not to speak about God Himself in a direct way, meaning all we can know is a roundabout way, סובב, that God, so to speak, ‘takes care of the world’, however anything pertaining to God not as He interacts with the world, ממלא כל עלמין, we can have absolutely no knowledge about. The ramifications of this approach in a simplified manner is that our ‘job’ in this world, which is only what we can have a שייכות to is strictly the letter of the law.

    Chassidus in general, and Chabad in particular, reformulated the concept of our knowledge of God. Without getting into details, Chassidus teaches that knowledge of סובב is actually a higher form than of ממלא and that a human being can achieve even this level. Chassidus further teaches that there is a difference between אור אין סוף and אין סוף itself. In other words, even as it relates to this world there are many ‘levels’ of Divine manifestations as it pertains to us. How it is manifested and it’s relationship with the physical is a lengthy discussion which we will not get into now, however what is patently clear according to this is that everything, including the physical is אלקות; and everything even רוחניות was created and is not God in the strict sense.

    Now, what Chassidus and the Litvishe (for lack of better word) understanding of the Divine Hierarchy have in common is that they do not speak about God himself. However what the God that is unknowable is a dispute as mentioned above. For according the Litveshe understanding Kabbalah through speaking of the Divine Attributes ספירות is in itself a discussion of God that we cannot understand, ממלא; but, according to Chassidus, this is סובב and can be grasped through contemplation דעתא עילאה (at least by the ‘higher souls’). עצו”ה according to the litvishe is God himself, according to Chassidus we never discuss God himself, rather these are all forms of emanation that pertains to us.

    To sum it up. No one believes that we can speak of, let alone grasp, God Himself. The issue at hand is rather what is the Zoher speaking of, God Himself or rather סובב. Therefore there is always an equivicotion between the terms used in Chassidus and the Litvishe, and do not mean the same thing. When the Lubabitcher Rebbe said that a Rebbe is עצו”ה he did not mean God HImself as a Litvishe would understand it.

    Avi K

    1. The fact is that right in Crown Heights there are Yechis. There is also a group in Tzefat that davens to his picture.
    2. I ran the quote through a Google translator. If the translation is accurate he only said that the Rebbe is the spiritual leader of the Chassidim. This is a far cry from those who say that he is the embodiment of Gd in this world. Even saying that he is Mashiach and will have a second coming is extremely problematic for obvious reasons. In fact, after he died the Jews for Yushki put a full-page ad in the NY Times with his picture and the caption “Right Idea. Wrong Person”. To be fair, chabad.org talks about Mashiach as coming in the future.


    Chossid, I know many highly educated Lubavitchers many family members and shluchim. They all say what your saying. “You have to know a lot, ask someone else.” I think it’s reasonable to ask a group like this for some direction. Was this sicha for like two people? No one really knows what it means but we are sure it’s not exactly what it sounds like?


    I think people refer you to others who know more than them to explain why davka the term atzmus umehus, or how Hashem is mislabesh in the Rebbe etc.

    But the simple meaning is pretty straightforward. The Rebbe is saying that when you ask the Rebbe you’re not asking the Rebbe as a person to go to Hashem for you necessarily, rather you’re asking Hashem as He is revealed through the Rebbe, like a Malach is called by Hashem’s Name when he is on a mission from Hashem, or like Moshe Rabbeinu who said “I will give grass “. The “I “ wasn’t Moshe speaking as a human being, although he was, it was Hashem speaking through Moshe because He was revealed in him.


    And if it seems radical that Hashem is speaking through a Rebbe in today’s day and age, just remember when we’re talking about a Rebbe here, we’re talking about a tzaddik who has completely transformed his yetzer hara to another yetzer tov as explained in Tanya. Not everyone who carries the title of Rebbe is the type of Rebbe that the Rebbe was talking about.



    I don’t think it occurred to the Lubavitcher Rebbe that people would specifically seek to interpret his words in a bad way.


    To a degree it does apply to the all of Klal Yisroel. The Rebbe in his speech based the idea on the kabbalistic concept that Yisroel v’Oraisa v’Kidsha Barich Hu, chad hu. On some level all of Klal Yisroel has a unity with Hashem.

    My understanding of the Rebbe’s idea (I am not a Chabadsker so take this with a grain of salt) is that there are layers of gashmius built up upon everything physical that masks the Hashem-stuff underlying it. Our aveiros and taivos create barrier between us and Hashem. A great tzaddik and talmud chacham, however, has a much smaller barrier and greater connection to Hashem. His physical is less physical than an ordinary person–and therefore more like Hashem. Thus, instead of a being a chatziza between a Jew and Hashem he is a bridge.

    Mashul l’ma hadavar domeh. If a person is going to the mikvah and they have mud on them, the mud is a chatziza between them and the water of the mikvah. But if the person is wet from a shower and they go into the mikvah, the outside water is not chotzetz. On the contrary it connects to the mikvah better.

    Avi K

    Saying that Hashem is mitlabesh in the Rebbe sounds very much like another religion. you then bring it down and seem to just say that Hashem inspires the Rebbe. Do I understand you correctly?


    Benignuman got it right. And Avi k yes but it’s more than inspire it’s Hashem speaking through him like Moshe Rabbonim. The Zohar says that there is an extension of Moshe in every generation




    There is a whole world of difference between Hashem being mislabesh INTO the Rebbe, or “MEDABER MITOCH G’RONO” like Moshe Rabbenu. You are treding on very slippery slopes, and you are in DANGER of slipping into “El Acher” Ch”V!


    There’s also the maamar of the Zohar that the Rebbe quotes in the same sicha “the face of the Master is the face of Rabi Shimon bar Yochai.” Same idea. That the tzaddik is so nullified before Hashem that Hashem shines and is expressed through him.


    This conversation is like people who don’t learn math debating the merits of sublime mathematical theories. If you want to know what the Rebbe means then start learning Chabad Chassidus and become an expert in the subject matter that is the context and the substance of what The Rebbe is saying. If you are just looking for problems to justify your axe grinding there is no purpose in having a conversation with you.


    all the ppl in history who made themselves into G-ds where realy just following the Rambam? No! if you take the Rambam that step further it is the most elementary form of Avodah Zara



    Of course not. Those people weren’t saying that they were a chelek elokai mimal. Those people were saying that they were gods independent of Hashem–the very opposite of the Rambam that the only true existence is Hashem.


    “A rebbe iz Atzmus uMahus vos hot zich areingeshtelt in a guf”—this is the natural outcome of believing in tsimtsum lo-ki-feshuto, existence of the world is merely an illusion according to this view. This is what bothered the Gra.


    It is very hard to look at this world for long, and not conclude that it is an illusion.

Viewing 17 posts - 51 through 67 (of 67 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.