What is the נשמה, our soul?
Of course, our knowledge to precisely define and delineate certain things is limited, but we do have a מסורה (tradition) from our חכמים, from way back, דורי דורות, which finds expression in Chazal and ancient tefillos. And that is, that it is a spiritual creation of הקב"ה, that comes from a very high place (sometimes a description of חצובה מתחת כסא הכבוד, hewn from under the heavenly throne of glory, is seen). In later generations, some have used an expression taken from a pasuk in ספר איוב (לא:ב) for it, namely חלק אלו-ה ממעל. Chabad-Lubavitch adds the word ממש (literally) to that, zealously stressing it in its preaching. Due to that, there is fairly widespread misconception, to a significant degree fueled by and emanating from them, that the neshamah is "a piece of G-d" literally, ר"ל.
Of course, that is quite problematic, as it blurs, or eliminates, the distinction between the Creator and the created, the בורא and the נברא, and is reminiscent of foreign faiths, עבודה זרה ר"ל.
The matter has been discussed online in various fora, at various times, such as here, here, and here.
Recently, during a shiur on the ימים נוראים davening, in speaking about עלינו, a speaker displayed a Chabad-Lubavitch siddur open to that prayer (סדור תהלת ה' עם תרגום באנגלית, תשע"ד, ניו יורק, עמוד 288), in which the translation states that Hashem has given each of us a neshamah "that is part of Himself". Such dangerous, misleading, if not outright heretical words, blur or eliminate the distinction between the בורא, הקב"ה (the creator, Almighty G-d), and the נברא (the created - man), a very dangerous thing, which is even more problematic in a tefillah where we stress our distance from ע"ז, especially during this awesome time of the year.
On the other hand, in the beginning of the tefillah of אמיץ כח, in mussaf of Yom Kippur, where it relates the early history of the world, it states with regard to the neshamah (line 12), הפחת בחלדו טהר נשם מזבולך, You (HKB"H) breathed into him a pure breath (neshamah) from your zevul (an area of the heavenly sphere). No mention of it being a "part".
In the zechus of being careful, understanding what we say and believe, particularly in the area of עיקרי הדת, and avoiding and resisting dangerous distortions of our faith and mesorah, in addition to outright אפיקורסות (even if spread by men with lengthy beards), may we be zoche to a שנה טובה ומבורכת.
It's quite clear that Chabad isn't interested in our Mesorah. The Rebbe had his agenda and nothing else matters to them but furthering this agenda. I want to share something I saw in the last week's Jewish Vues. Toward the the end of his column Rabbi Moshe Meir Weiss wrote the following: I have a certain problem with Chabad(he didn't disclose the issue). I was in Monticello and I met with the Chabad Rabbi there(I forgot his name). He told me that Chabad has a system in which every person has a Mashpia who critiques his actions. Rabbi Weiss then said that we should adopt this practice. The function of the Mashpia system is to make sure that Lubavichers never question what they're being told. Now as for Rabbi Weiss, instead of criticizing Chabad he praises them. And why, because he's a Rabbi Miller follower and Rabbi Miller Paskened that all Lubavichers are perfect. . Unfortunately Millerites are almost as lost as Lubavichers.
ReplyDeleteI searched and found the article that you refer to (p.20 at https://view.flipdocs.com/?PID=1000741&BACK=1). R. Weiss says at the end of it that it is like what Pirkei Avos tells us, עשה לך רב. If so, it is not a Lubavitch innovation, just a repackaging/rebranding more or less.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, in practice, not all Lubavitchers have such a mashpia. I have seen talk on (a) Lubavitcher website(s) about such a problem. Theory and practice are not always in sync.
Rav Miller was a great man. But people need a living rebbe too, as sometimes conditions change, and adjustments need to be made. Followers of Rav Miller zt"l should not be like Lubavitchers in terms of being followers of a leader that has passed away. They can and should of course still learn from his teachings, but sometimes new conditions arise, a new metzius, which may warrant some change in details, even if the general mehalech stays the same.