Moshe Ben-Chaim
Alan G: Shalom, I have read the Jewish Times for several years, and have contributed to Mesora in the past. I found the small piece in Vol. III 3 #43 on “Tanya’s Heresy” to be curiously strained. I do not belong to any Hassidic sect. I simply study many of the writings of the Sages of the past, including the Alter Rebbe’s Tanya.
What I found curious was the departure from your normally rigorous intellectual approach to discussions to take a quote “sent by a friend”, and “taken from the Tanya” to make a bold claim of heresy against Rebbe Zalman. You did not indicate the chapter the quote was taken from, or provide any context at all to the Alter Rebbe’s thinking, as you often to with Rambam. The result had a feeling of intellectual dishonesty and a rush to judgment that would certainly be beneath you.
So I present the following quotes from Tanya. As with any work, it must be studied to understand the language and intent of the author. Taking any one small quote, and including with it commentary not from the author’s words, is just, well, not intellectually sound. To use a small quote to make a claim of heresy is a serious matter that needs to be challenged at every instance, unless the case is obvious and clear to all.
“The Holy One, blessed be
He, however, is a perfect unity, without any composition or element of
plurality at all.”
Now concerning the connection between the Holy One and created beings:
“It is not within the capacity of the mind of any creature to comprehend the essential nature of the creation of being out of nothing”… “the infinite One completely fills the whole earth temporally and spatially. Therefore even the earth and that which is below it are naught and utter nothingness in relation to the Holy One…” Accordingly it is written ‘You were [the same] before the world was created; You are [the same after the world was created], without any change in His Being’.”
“As Maimonides, of blessed memory stated, that He is the Knower, He is the Known, and He is Knowledge itself; all are one.”
As we know, this statement from the Rambam has been hotly debated, and could be used in charges of “heresy” against him to indicate that the Rambam thought G-d had “parts”, if taken out of context in a dishonest manner.
“For the Holy One, blessed be He, His Essence and Being, and His Knowledge – are all absolutely one, from every side and angle, and in every form of unity”.
According to the Alter Rebbe, each creature and being is in reality considered to be naught and nothingness in relation to the activating force and the ‘breath of His mouth’ which is within it, continuously calling it into existence and bringing it from absolute non-being into being. Created beings derive their life and existence from the life-force issuing forth from the Infinite One to vitalize creation, ex nihilo. This does not indicate any “parts” of G-d whatsoever. The quote you used to claim heresy is weak and taken out of context from the overall thinking of the Alter Rebbe. I feel you have done Rebbe Zalman and his body of work an injustice. Again, I am simply pursuing intellectual honesty, am not a member of a Chassidic sect, and study all the accepted and highly regarded writings of our Sages with a critical eye.
–Thank you, Alan G.
Mesora: Alan,
I agree, as you said, “heresy is a serious matter that needs to be challenged at every instance”. However, I do not see how my taking a quote “from a friend” in any way disqualifies the quote, as you intimate. Although I agree, that a noted chapter would have helped others locate the exact quote, a photo of the actual page was included with my article. Additionally, I noted the following, immediately after the quote: “Lessons In Tanya,” published by “Kehot” with a preface by the Rebbe.” What better verification could have been offered? This quote is true to the original.
You write that I made a “bold claim” of heresy against Rebbe Zalman. What do you mean by this? That a human is infallible? Had someone with a lesser reputation stated the exact same heresy, you would not accuse me of making a “bold” statement. You thereby imply that challenging a “greater reputation” demands one to hold his tongue, not speaking what he sees as truth, or in this case, what I see as false. However, what does the Torah say about your opinion: “do not fear him” are the closing words stated in connection with the False Prophet. (Deut. 18:22) Also, Aaron had no hesitation to contradict his greater brother Moses, and in fact, Aaron was correct. Torah does not ask us to blindly accept a “reputation”, but rather, to seek the truth. Personalities are of no consequence. The Torah is quite clear, reputation plays no role when determining truth, we are not to fear man, even one who claims he is the Messiah, and even Moses. Certainly Rebbe Zalman may be opposed.
Your subsequent quotes from other chapters do not address what I critiqued. This approach - attempting to remove the heresy from one statement by quoting others - is not reasonable. Analyzing my cited quote, I see no way to render Tanya’s statement non-heretical. Additionally, this heresy is supported by an utter distortion of Job, and also violates Maimonides 13 Principles.
In fact, one of your quotes from Tanya makes matters worse:
“the infinite One completely fills the whole earth temporally and spatially.”
Did you read that? Tanya suggests that G-d exists in the Earth, both “temporally and spatially”. You quote Tanya’s other chapters in an attempt to remove heresy, when in fact; this quote supports heresy that G-d exists in “time and space.” King Solomon stated just the opposite, “…behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You…” (I Kings 8:27).
You write further:
“As we know, this statement from the Rambam has been hotly debated, and could be used in charges of “heresy” against him to indicate that the Rambam though G-d had “parts”, if taken out of context in a dishonest manner:
‘For the Holy One, blessed be He, His Essence and Being, and His Knowledge – are all absolutely one, from every side and angle, and in every form of unity’. ” (Maimonides)
I fail to see your argument. Maimonides speaks nothing of G-d possessing division or parts. Just the opposite is true; Maimonides states that G-d is “absolutely One”. Whereas the Tanya clearly states as follows:
Chapter II
“The second, uniquely Jewish soul is truly part of G-d above.”
“A part of G-d above” is a
quotation from Scripture (Job, 31:2). The Alter Rebbe adds the word “truly” to
stress the literal meaning of these words. For, as is known, some verses employ
hyperbolic language. For example, the verse describing “great and fortified
cities reaching into the heavens” is clearly meant to be taken figuratively,
not literally. In order that we should not interpret the phrase “ a part of G-d
above” in a similar manner, the Alter Rebbe adds the word “truly”, thus
emphasizing that the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above.”
The Tanya clearly says, “the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above.” This is outright heresy.
You also quote the following:
“The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is a perfect unity, without any composition or element of plurality at all.”
This quote is sound, and certainly contradicts the quote that “the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above.” I take no issue with Chapter Seven, but with Chapter Two. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that we find contradictions in man’s words. So in addition to the heresy of G-d possessing parts in the form of man’s soul, you add that the Tanya contains contradictions. You revealed a second flaw in the words of Tanya.
What it most disturbing, is that you do not offer an alternate explanation for what you suggest is my inaccuracy in understanding Tanya and the book of Job. In both cases, why did you not offer what you consider the “correct” interpretation? By suggesting one is wrong, simultaneously possessing no “correct”, you render your argument null.
Not only do you fail to explain away heresy from the statement of Tanya that “that the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above”, but you compound Tanya’s flaws, by demonstrating its heretical “consistency” by quoting yet another heretical view, “the infinite One completely fills the whole earth temporally and spatially.” You also demonstrate that Tanya is inherently contradictory.
In conclusion you write:
“The quote you used to claim heresy is weak and taken out of context from the overall thinking of the Alter Rebbe. I feel you have done Rebbe Zalman and his body of work an injustice.”
You have shown that the context is actually more heretical than I stated. Thus, the only injustice I detect, are these quotes which lead many people astray from the Torah.
–Moshe Ben-Chaim
Eddie: Dear Rabbi, I
must praise your for taking a public stand against the heresy in the Tanya. I raised this problem with several “orthodox” rabbis
a decade ago. The Chassidim
consider the Bal HaTanya as “Moshe Rabbeinu”, and are not people with
whom one can reason. However, very
few Mitnagdim have the knowledge or the courage to deal with such a
problem. They generally believe that
Tanya is part of the revealed Oral Law, which has been “accepted” and is
irreversible.
In all, I found only two Gedolei Torah disputed the content of the Tanya, but
I don't wish to name them. One was a Rosh Yeshiva, who is an authority on both Halacha, and philosophy.
The other was a Sefardi Gadol who was an expert on Rambam.
The Tanya is in fact also pantheistic, saying that G-d is immanent in all
creation. More than
this, Tanya, in its Shaar Hayichud, makes the heretical claim that the 10 Sefirot and G-d are one, in every aspect. This is as
heretical as the trinity of
the Christians.
–Best wishes, Eddie