David Berger's Book on Chabad

I come from a family that has roots in Chabad from the 5th Rebbe at the latest and I just read the book on Chabad messianism. Took me a while because the story he paints is painful. I don't mean by that it's a bad book. It's fine with some parts that bothered me as I will describe here. But what has happened to Chabad, or much of it, is tragic. I am not only not mashichist but I don't even believe the Rebbe, may he rest in peace, whose Torah I adore, was the greatest man of the generation. He was one of about 20 that I know of. I have no way of knowing who might have been the greatest if even such a thing is knowable by anyone or even possible or even important.

What bothered me about the book is firstly that it seems to come from an academic's perspective, meaning it puts great importance on what a few oddball people write. For academics, writing is everything. So if somebody writes a crazy screed, it seems to rock the world. But most people today don't read at all anything other than text messages from their friends. So if some guy in Chicago writes that the Rebbe was this or that, it likely doesn't affect anyone other than his household if even they take him seriously.

Could the various screeds indicate trends in Chabad? Could be. But I have been to Chabad houses all over the world and can't say that I ever encountered deification of the rebbe or even much talk about him at all if one comes as a visitor seeking kosher food and the like. Even at Chanukah events, and I have been to many, nothing like that happens. Sometimes if you sit at a farbregen you'll hear moshiach talk or excessive miracle stories but moreso in frum communities like Passaic or Beit Shemesh, not in Raleigh, North Carolina or Hong Kong or Bangkok where they don't really have farbregens anyway. Could be it's worse in Chabad strongholds like Australia - never been there but I was in Paris a few times and didn't see much rebbe stuff; although my French is weak.

Even in Kfar Chabad, well there are too many pictures of him. There are too many pictures of him all over Israel. But people in Kfar Chabad aren't jumping up and down yelling about moshiach or the magic powers of the rebbe. You might hear the latter in stories but it isn't overwhelming, just annoying. You know after all while, the brain hears it like white noise. How many times can you say it? It loses impact after a while.

My son studies in a Chabad school in Israel and some of the teachers are mashichist but they don't promote that view at all. It's understood that wouldn't be appropriate or helpful. They keep it to themselves; although one or two wear the special yarmulka. My son laughs at the idea and does so openly in the school and encounters no trouble because of that. In the end, Chabad believes in love so they can only be so oppressive. You might be picturing Litvachs and projecting their style onto Chabad. Most of his day is Chumash, Mishnah, Gemara. They have once a week Tanya class that they seem to skip most weeks.

I also know many non-mashichist Lubavitchers. They tend to be people who live and work in the larger world and aren't taken in with such childish thought.

The other issue I have with the book is it doesn't say quite enough about the good of Chabad. It is careful to be respectful of the Rebbe and to acknowledge something about the good of Chabad's contemporary works but because the book is intended to highlight a problem, it does what it says Chabad does, give a warped view of a subject. I suppose it's written for frum people who know the good of Chabad. And by the way, the good of Chabad isn't just the public work of the 6th and 7th rebbes. It's the whole derech dating back to the Baal HaTanya. Think of Rabbi Soloveitchik's cheder rebbe who he credits with being such a good influence, with giving him feeling and soul. R' Avigdor Miller also had a good experience with a Chabad chosid, one who taught him for free because he didn't have any money. This was long before the 7th Rebbe became leader as R' Miller was born in 1908. R' Miller says that this teacher, Rabbi Axlelrod, used to take more time bentching than he did eating.

Last thing is that the book is about Chabad. Another good book would be one on the tendencies towards foolishness and idolatry in all the groups. Dr. Berger is just looking at the other guy. He should take at look at his own which I assume to be Modern Orthodoxy with some connections to the Litvish world. We only see the other guy's idol worship not our own. Zionism is even more popular than Chabad. And Zionism leads people to worship the state and the army.  See, it's hard to see the flaws in one's own group. And the Litvish? They have made gods of Torah scholars. I'm not talking about respect. I'm talking about worship.

All the groups are sagging. Why just get upset about Chabad? They all are warping Judaism today. A book on that is what I'd like to see.

It is my contention that today the biggest fanatics are in the Charedi/Yeshivish/Litvish and Religious Zionist world. The reason is because they come mostly from the Litvish world where thoughts are taken very seriously. But the old time Litvacks like Chaim Soloveitchik were open minded and allowed more diversity of thought. So each guy had his opinion and he took it seriously but there were other opinions around and each guy largely tolerated it.

Chassidim are more conformist but thought isn't the centerpiece of their world. Community, service, holiness. Those are central. They don't take their thoughts quite so seriously.

But the Litvacks were influenced by the Chassidim and the Zionists, they picked up the conformity when they tried to imitate the holiness of Chasidim (and they do it in part to combat the secular traife world), and they were influenced by Israeli militarism, which like any militarism is highly conformist. The result is incredibly rigid intensity. So as I said earlier, I believe Dr. Berger is projecting the Litvish/Zionist style onto Chabad and thinking that people there take ideas as seriously as they do in the non-Chasidic world. I realize Chabad is a blend of the two, but you get the point.

Linked Post: Halachic justification to not pray the amidah before zman t'filah?

Halachic justification to not pray the amidah before zman t'filah?

http://judaism.stackexchange.com

Rabbi Yosef Avraham Heller, the Rosh Kollel of Crown Heights, Brooklyn and former member of the Beis Din there, wrote a essay explaining the Halachic justification for davening after Chatzos, published in "Kobetz Beis Chayenu" 11 Nissan 5760 pg. 28. The crunch of the explanation is as follows:

The Gemora (Brochos 26a) states that, "He may go on praying [Shachris] the whole day. But up to midday he is given the reward of saying the Tefillah in its proper time; thereafter he is given the reward of saying Tefillah, but not of saying Tefillah in its proper time." Although the mainstream view in Rishonim is that of the Rashba that after Chatzos is only considered tashlumim if he accidently missed the time, the Perisha in OC Siman 89 cites an alternative view that even after Chatzos is still considered the time of davening Shachris but only that one would not receive the reward for davening on time. Rabbi Heller continues to back up this view based on many Rishonim that maintain that the time for Shachris is the entire day. Although this Prisha argues with the Mechaber and Rama, Rabbi Heller suggest that since it concurs with the view of many Rishonim, Chassidim relied on his ruling in order to have adequate kavana in their davening.

There are also several letters of the Lubavitcher Rebbe on the topic collected in "Sharey Halacha U'Minhag" OC Chelek 1 pg. 111. The Rebbe brings the halacha (OC 98:2 and Rambam Hilchos Tefila 4:15-16) that proper kavanah during davening is integral to the davening, and without it the teffila is nullified. He asserts that therefore proper preparation for davening takes precedence over being exact in the time of davening.

However, it must be stressed that all the above is only when one is involved in davening or it's preparation from before zman tefila. There is no justification to begin davening after chatzos.

In terms of an opinion that as long as one begins before zman tefilla they may continue even after, I heard that this comes from Tosfos in Brochos 7a "Sh'ilmaley". The Gemora relates that Biliam tried to find the exact second Hashem was angry to curse the Jews, and Tosfos asks what he could have said in that short moment. In their second answer Tosfos says that as long as he would have started at a time of Divine anger the curse would work even after. Similarly, the "zman tefilla" follows when one begins even if he finishes after.

Chabad is non-Zionist

Prof. Lawrence H. Schiffman - Chabad Messianism ~42:00

Although Lubavitch is the most Zionist of the non-Zionists, he says, and that's because of messianism.