Rabbi David Berger, a historian who is a sharp critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, has been appointed head of Jewish studies at Yeshiva University’s undergraduate college in a move that has ruffled some feathers on the campus.
Writing in the college’s student paper, the Commentator, Josh Shteir, a senior at the school and a co-president of the Chabad Club on campus, argued that Berger’s “intolerance” of Chabad is unacceptable at Y.U. The university is affiliated with the Modern Orthodox movement but welcomes Orthodox Jews who practice differently.
“How am I, a student at Y.U., as well as someone with a strong connection to the Lubavitch movement, supposed to understand this appointment and its apparent conflict with the cultural open-mindedness espoused by the University?” he wrote in a missive directed at university administrators.
Y.U. announced last fall that it would hire Berger, who had been a history professor at Brooklyn College for 37 years and had taught part time at Y.U. for almost as long, as a full-time faculty member. He was appointed to the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies and later to the Jewish studies department at Yeshiva College, Y.U.’s undergraduate division. Then, as now, some students publicly objected.
Yosef Levine, alumni president of Y.U.’s Chabad group and a 1999 graduate of its business school, said that he campaigned against Berger’s appointment last year because Berger was inappropriately hostile regarding the subject of Chabad.
According to Levine, the trouble began about two years ago when Berger, who occasionally led Sabbath services at Y.U., “dove into ruthless soliloquizing against Chabad” at a post-service “shmooze,” disturbing even non-Chabad students and leading several to walk out.
The debate is centered on Berger’s well-known critiques of the block of Chabad adherents who believe that Menachem Schneerson, the late Chabad leader, is the messiah. Berger, who is Modern Orthodox himself, claims that this belief is tantamount to heresy. In his 2001 book, “The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference,” Berger argued that Judaism rejects the idea that the messiah can be a deceased person. That belief, he wrote, has differentiated Judaism from Christianity for 2,000 years. He censures the Chabad movement and the Orthodox establishment at large for what he sees as their lack of outrage in response to the messianic elements in the Lubavitch community.
Berger responded to Shteir’s article with an opinion piece of his own, in which he claimed that Shteir was taking part in a Chabad campaign to silence critics. “[My position on Chabad] is not closed-minded, unless Mr. Shteir believes that open-mindedness requires the abolition of all theological boundaries defining the Jewish religion,” Berger wrote.
Both articles delve into complex hermeneutics, as do many of the dozens of reader responses posted on the Commentator Web site.
In an interview with the Forward, Berger said he was unconcerned about the controversy, which he called “a tempest in a teapot.” He suggested that Y.U. is big enough for both Chabad students and their critics.
“Yeshiva College [does not ask student applicants] about personal beliefs, and I don’t think Lubavitcher students should be asked either,” he said.
Chabad officials agreed with Berger that the controversy should not be overplayed.
“While we don’t agree with Berger, this is not a Lubavitcher issue — it’s a Y.U. issue,” a spokesman for the group said.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When Hank Greenberg Met Jackie Robinson
Columbia Seeks To End 'Whites Only' Fellowship
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Ultra-Orthodox Men Ditch All-Black Attire as Fashion Trumps Tradition
Israel's Shas, Right-Wing Kingmaker Party, Takes Sharp Turn to Left
You've successfully signed up!
Berger's a putz!
I think in these times, having a critic of Chabad on a Jewish University, where many students are Chabad, is just poor taste, bad judgement, and really something I would expect from Brandeis, but NOT YU. Where today can a religious Jew go to school and not have to defend his Judiasm? Bir Zeit? University of Michigan? COlumbia? We are under attack by many professors and countries, is there a safe place for Jews anymore? I think YU made a very bad decision
Professor Berger's critics within Chabad and their sympathizers are engaged in a campaign of silencing anyone, within and outside of academia, from saying or writing anything critical of Chabad. When one sees questions as to Professor Berger's bona fides as a historian, one must consider the possibility that anyone critical of Chabad is the target, as opposed to a Talmudic scholar and renowned historian who merely raised the issue of messianism within Chabad's midst.
Maybe the students should start writing letters to the YU board members to get rid of him? Or a media campaign?
Many of the Chabad did indeed believe that Schneerson was the Messiah. Whenever I would ask them directly, they would avert their eyes, look at the ground, and say, "Well, Jewish law says that the Messiah will be a great person, and Rebbe Schneerson is a great person -- " Let's see Josh Shteir make a clear statement that Schneerson is *not* the Messiah. If someone joins Jews for Jesus, he's not Jewish any more. If someone believes that Jesus was the Messiah, he's not Jewish any more. If someone believes that Schneerson is the Messiah, he's not Jewish any more. It's not "intolerance" or "closed-minded" to say so. I'm glad Berger had the courage to say it.
Oh, and one more response to Rabbi Berger's critique of Chabad: I've been to Chabad houses all over the world and developed friendships with Chabad rabbis in a number of places. Nobody has ever spoken to me about Moshiach or the late Rebbe's spiritual status. They believe what they believe, but they don't ask anyone to agree with them and they don't "trick" anybody into acquiescing to an article of faith that he or she might feel uncomfortable with. They corrupt nobody; they muddy nobody's waters. What they do is spread mitzvot and fellow feeling among Jews. Instead of criticizing them, I think they should be held up as a model for Jews reconciling an esoteric, possibly controversial theology with practical, positive engagement in the world around them.
I work in Brooklyn with many Chabad friends, so I know the inside scoop: Most Chabad believe the Rebbe is Messiah, at the very least. Kipot and bumper stickers here clearly proclaim that the Rebbe is "King Messiah." That alone makes me barf---I have no desire to be ruled by a king in this life, or the next. Except for little girls, who on earth is enthralled by tales (or analogies)of kings and queens and princes and knights, even if they are issue of the House of David. Grow up, Chabadniks!! There ain't no Messiah, and the long-dead Rebbe ain't him neither. When will all forms of Orthodox Judaism drop the fairy tales?
Good Lord. Professor Berger is one of the leading experts in Jewish history in the world and Yeshiva and its students are lucky to have him on campus. His principled argument(in his spare time) with what he and many others view as a heretical and tragic mistake by some ( or many- no one knows) in Chabad is,obviously, not a bar.
Larry, Berger has published nothing but his dissertation and a half dozen articles. Most of his time and articles have been reviews and polemics to defend his YU vision. He is far from a great scholar of medieval JH, and certainly not of JH in general. He just happens to be one of the few YU products that went into academia. He is not the great figure that others cite or write studies about like Jacob Katz. If YU wanted a medievalist they would have chosen someone like Jeremy Cohen. Rather, he was chosen for his ideology. And that ideology is offensive to many.
Is YU orthodox? Berger's position flies in the face of the Gemara in Sanhendrin 98B (among many other normative sources and authoritative non-chabad, rabbinic authorities) that says that moshiach can come from the dead. So much for "Judaic" studies! Will Berger drop "Be fruitful and multiply" or "Thou shalt not steal" because Christians believe something similar? Polemicists have no place in leadership on any American campus and a fortiori on an ostensibly orthodox one.
Usually when an academic develops a hobby of polemicizing in his or her spare time, it's an indication both that he or she has grown bored with his or her research, and that the research itself has grown old and decadent: once an academic begins polemicizing, it typically affects his or her scholarship, so that it becomes impossible to distinguish the research from the polemic, the scholarship from the ideology. This is generally a disservice to the scholar's specialty, to his or her students, and perhaps most of all to his or her colleagues who have to listen to the polemic and defend (what remains of) the legitimate research. With respect to Rabbi Berger's specific critique of Chabad, I've got only one response: when a modern orthodox Jewish group, or any other Jewish group, is prepared to offer Shabbat hospitality, kosher food, and unrestricted warmth and friendship to Jews in Kathmandu, Marseilles, and Bloomington, Indiana, then I'll be persuaded to stop supporting Chabad. Until then, I suggest that Rabbi Berger have a coke and a smile, and shut the hell up....
ggg Rather unkind. If Professor Katz z"l were available, I suspect YU would have jumped at the opportunity. I stick with my asessment and add that Professor Berger is a wonderful teacher and a wonderful role model as well, and aside from the Chabad Shlichim on campus posing as students there will be no mass movement or any other movement of students to protest his appointment. Since it is now apparent that you are a snide intellectual ( I have a suspicion) rather than a fool as I thought from your prior comment, I'll leave it there.
Its completely OK if everyone has their own opinion, but, there are people and groups that i don't necessarily agree with, and if someone asks me my opinion, I'll tell them, but that doesn't mean i go giving talks and lectures about them and make sure everybody knows what i feel. Anybody who does this is obviously lacking self confidence and the ability to promote what he holds of and represents. Is that the guy you want running a school for Jews?
Its completely OK if everyone has their own opinion, but, there are people and groups that i don't necessarily agree with, and if someone asks me my opinion, I'll tell them, but that doesn't mean i go giving talks and lectures about them and make sure everybody knows what i feel. Anybody who does this is obviously lacking self confidence and the ability to promote what he holds of and represents. Is that the guy you want running a school for Jews?
Its completely OK if everyone has their own opinion, but, there are people and groups that i don't necessarily agree with, and if someone asks me my opinion, I'll tell them, but that doesn't mean i go giving talks and lectures about them and make sure everybody knows what i feel. Anybody who does this is obviously lacking self confidence and the ability to promote what he holds of and represents. Is that the guy you want running a school for Jews?
Berger is a teacher, and his *job* is to give talks and lectures about important issues in Judaism, and make sure everybody knows what he feels. He would be violating his intellectual responsibility to his students if he were intimidated into silence. It's pretty clear that if someone believes that the Messiah has arrived, he's no longer a Jew -- unless you believe that Schnerson actually *is* the Messiah. OK, do you believe Schneerson is the Messiah?
The comments here show the truth by attacking Dr Berger for everything except for his scholarship. What Chabad does in Kathmandu is not germane to the issues Berger discusses. (Plus, of course, those in small communities may differ anyway, as Chabad has shown a propersity to take over control or leave, never cooperating with the local Orthodox non-Chabads). Accusations of Sinas Chinom, of an "agenda", of everything except saying Amen to the Chabad party line. Have you ever seen any Chabadi- even the alleged anti-meshichists- say out loud, "The Rebbe is not moshiach?" or "The Rebbe is really dead"? And if a dead man can be the Messiah, why not Jesus? And why is there not a single "Gadol BaTorah" in all these years that agrees with this nonsense? They go to great lengths to show that R. Soloveitchik came- once- to the rebbe, etc., but NO gadol agrred with, or met with, the Rebbe in all those years to agree on anything substantial. Acknowledged world-famous gedolei Hador like R. Aaron Kotler, R. Moshe Feinstein, R. E. Henkin, and so on all disregarded the Rebbe and his movement. Their entire empire is based on taking what the regular Torah movement rejects, not re baalei teshuva, where they did pioneer, but in regard to honoring mechalelei shabbos and those married to shiksa's just to get their money, and their acceptance of minimal Jewish standards if you gave money to them. The telethon, frum long beards dancing with men intermaried and not keeping any mitzvos and getting adulation anyway, is a shanda and betrays their deep truth- anything is okay if it brings recognition to the rebbe. Same thing with hanging the Rebbe's photo in treif restaurants, mechalel shabbos stores, and other inappropriate places. At least YU had the guts to hire Dr berger, it's a huge shame to the Torah world that everyone else is so afraid of Chabad that they kep quiet.
I gotta say that even though I'm no fan of David Berger or his polemics, if I were coming up for tenure I would hate to have GGG on my committee...! I'm also rather curious as to where he earned tenure...?
For the record, I don't think Rebbe Schneerson is the messiah, any more than Jesus, and the evidence of this is the simple fact that we still live in an unredeemed world. For the record, I'm nowhere near what might be referred to as a follower of Chabad, typical or otherwise. Nonetheless, I think there is a fundamental distinction to be made between the Chabad movement and Christianity, whether of the run-of-the-mill variety or the "Jews for Jesus" abomination. If a Jew declares Jesus to be his or her messiah, he or she is either abandoning Judaism for Christianity or else confusing the two. "Jews for Jesus" takes a superficial and typically misunderstood patina of Jewish ritual practice and applies it, deceptively and maliciously, as a mask for a fundamentally (and fundamentalist) Protestant theology. Chabad, by contrast, has legitimate and profound roots in Jewish theology and mysticism, like it or not. It's been around since the beginning of the Hasidic movment and its beliefs regarding the Messiah and his place in Jewish cosmology extend back hundreds of years before the advent of Hasidism. One may not agree with this particular variety of Jewish mystical speculation--I don't agree with everything Chabad stands for, any more than I do everything that the Bobov khasidim stand for, or the Conservative movement; Rebbe Schneerson is no more my personal "rebbe" than is Jonathan Sacks or Samson Raphael Hirsch--but to deny its authenticity as an expression of Yiddishkeit is to deny history, and reality. With respect to the argument that no godl ha-torah ever sanctioned Chabad, this argument strikes me as pathetic on several fronts: do Jews not have a millenia-old tradition of thinking for themselves? Is an interpretation only "correct" when a great rabbi has approved it--and who, by the way, approves the list of gedolim: are they like Cardinals at the Vatican (by and large they don't dress as well...)? Are ideas "kosher" or "treif" the way an oven is? With all the whining about a "campaign to intimidate" anyone who dares to criticize Chabad, I can think of little in the Jewish religion more oppresssive, authoritarian, or antithetical to free thought than the suggestion that Chabad lacks legitimacy because it lacks the appropriate "hashgokha." In fact, I can think of at least one godl ha-torah who confirmed the significance of the Chabad movement: Rebbe Schneerson himself. Have you ever read the Likutey Sikhos? (Have you? Have you?) They are one of the great achievements of Jewish learning, exegesis, and preaching of the last half century. Condemn the telethon if you want, boycott Deli Kasbah if you must, but the intellectual achievements of Rebbe Schneerson are formidable, indelible, and absolutely organic to contemporary Jewish thought and spirituality.
For the record, I don't think Rebbe Schneerson is the messiah, any more than Jesus, and the evidence of this is the simple fact that we still live in an unredeemed world. For the record, I'm nowhere near what might be referred to as a follower of Chabad, typical or otherwise. Nonetheless, I think there is a fundamental distinction to be made between the Chabad movement and Christianity, whether of the run-of-the-mill variety or the "Jews for Jesus" abomination. If a Jew declares Jesus to be his or her messiah, he or she is either abandoning Judaism for Christianity or else confusing the two. "Jews for Jesus" takes a superficial and typically misunderstood patina of Jewish ritual practice and applies it, deceptively and maliciously, as a mask for a fundamentally (and fundamentalist) Protestant theology. Chabad, by contrast, has legitimate and profound roots in Jewish theology and mysticism, like it or not. It's been around since the beginning of the Hasidic movment and its beliefs regarding the Messiah and his place in Jewish cosmology extend back hundreds of years before the advent of Hasidism. One may not agree with this particular variety of Jewish mystical speculation--I don't agree with everything Chabad stands for, any more than I do everything that the Bobov khasidim stand for, or the Conservative movement; Rebbe Schneerson is no more my personal "rebbe" than is Jonathan Sacks or Samson Raphael Hirsch--but to deny its authenticity as an expression of Yiddishkeit is to deny history, and reality. With respect to the argument that no godl ha-torah ever sanctioned Chabad, this argument strikes me as pathetic on several fronts: do Jews not have a millenia-old tradition of thinking for themselves? Is an interpretation only "correct" when a great rabbi has approved it--and who, by the way, approves the list of gedolim: are they like Cardinals at the Vatican (by and large they don't dress as well...)? Are ideas "kosher" or "treif" the way an oven is? With all the whining about a "campaign to intimidate" anyone who dares to criticize Chabad, I can think of little in the Jewish religion more oppresssive, authoritarian, or antithetical to free thought than the suggestion that Chabad lacks legitimacy because it lacks the appropriate "hashgokha." In fact, I can think of at least one godl ha-torah who confirmed the significance of the Chabad movement: Rebbe Schneerson himself. Have you ever read the Likutey Sikhos? (Have you? Have you?) They are one of the great achievements of Jewish learning, exegesis, and preaching of the last half century. Condemn the telethon if you want, boycott Deli Kasbah if you must, but the intellectual achievements of Rebbe Schneerson are formidable, indelible, and absolutely organic to contemporary Jewish thought and spirituality.
Re Marc Bruhkes' comments: 1) The present beliefs espoused by Chabad re the Messiah are NOT around from the beginning of Chassidus, as you claim. This is a falsehood presented by present-day meshichists. Instead of reading so much Likutei, read Dr. Bergers book! 2) All through Rabbinic Judaism's history, the support of other gedolim was considred absolutely essential to any undertaking. Look at every (non-Chabad) sefer- they virtually ALL have haskomos from other gedolim. This is a time-honored tradition, as well as the fulfillment of "v'asiso kechol asher yorucha". It says something very important when NO contemporary gedolim support you! 3) Yes, stipulated that the Rebbe was a brilliant man. But justifying his work by using is own writings? Not only illogical as circular reasoning, it's a mockery of our tradition, where every p'sak is (or should be) based on the corpus of accepted halacha. 4) You can make fun of habad intimidation, but I know personally of many stories of Judaica stores, publications, and others that were threatened with boycotts or worse if they did things perceived even remotely as anti-Chabad. They once threatened a boycot on a friend of mine becaue he sold childrens blankets with cute pictures of treif circus animals on them!- to Chabad this is forbidden, despite the long tradition of lions on a Holy Ark. Please- Be honest. No one has a problem with you following Chabad, but don't be so disingenuous as to disavow it and follow up with "HE said so!" as if anyone other than a Chabadi would accept that as logical.
Re: Yossi G's comments: I don't follow Chabad; I think I made that as explicit as possible in my last posting. With respect to Chabad intimidation of Judaica stores, etc., I can only say that I've seen Berger's book on sale openly at many bookstores, Jewish or otherwise. With respect to Chabad's objection to children's books with "treif" animals, etc., I think this is mishegas on their part, but again, I've seen plenty of children's books even in haredi bookstores with "treif" animals depicted in them--and I've bought such books for my own daughter--so if Chabad is engaged in a campaign of intimidation they seem to be very ineffectual at it. And finally, I don't consider it to be an instance of circular reasoning to say that evidence of Rebbe Schneerson's intelligence as a Jewish thinker is to be found in his own writings. Where else is such evidence to be found? In MY writings?! Rather, the demand that brilliance be certified by outside sources is itself evidence of flawed reasoning: does everyone who has made an intellectual contribution to American life have a PhD from Harvard (or a PhD from anywhere)? Are all Harvard PhD's geniuses (I'll spare you the suspense: NO!)? Have the gedoley ha-dor ever approved a boring, irrelevant, or stupid sefer? (What do you think?!) There are plenty of ways to be a nudnik; Rebbe Schneerson at his best generally avoided most of them.... While we're appealing to outside authorities to bolster our arguments, if you're assigning me Dr. Berger's book as proof that Chabad's spin on messianism is a new phenomenon in Jewish mysticism, let me assign you the writings of Gershom Scholem and Joseph Weiss to assert that it's not. These were far better and more courageous scholars in their day than Dr. Berger is in ours, and unlike him, they didn't have any ideological axes to grind....
Marc, I have to agree with Yossi G.'s comments regarding the prioritization of quantity over quality by Chabad. I also beg to differ with you over the status of authenticity within the Jewish tradition. I find Marx's polemics much more endearingly Jewish than the mystical musings of Martin Heidegger.
Sorry to step into your ongoing dispute with him; I posted my comment before your last remarks.
Dear Brad Rappaport: I fail to see how the analogy of Marx with Heidegger is relevant here. Polemics and mysticism are equally at home in the Jewish tradition; Heidegger is no more a part of the Jewish tradition than the Dalai Lama is and Marx is no more a part of the Jewish tradition than Christopher Hitchens is (though like Hitchens, and unlike Heidegger, Marx DID have a Jewish mother...). Although we are free to disagree with the ideology or even the theology of Chabad, they are an organic part of the Jewish tradition; what is (or may be) objectionable about them is not the fact that they are mystics but the conclusions they draw from their mysticism. But given the social contribution they make to contemporary Judaism, I would say there are worse lessons to draw from the Jewish tradition--including a lesson of unremitting combativeness toward perceived enemeies--than the one Chabad brings to the table....
I invite all to read that person's book. I did. There is next to no meaningful content. Borrow it from a Chabad hater or library and read it and your eyes will be opened.
Marc, when I go back and look at your original comment, I see that your opinion is basically that you like what Chabad is doing. I would be foolish to try to talk you out of that. Still, there's an old crack about the usefulness of having knowledge when it comes to reaching out to people. I'm sure your Chabad friends would appreciate that as much as anybody else.
For the record, I append a list of publications on the Middle Ages without imposing the limitations noted in my earlier post. Publications on other periods of Jewish History are omitted. I just note that as a scholar gets older and reaches a certain position in the field, invitations to participate in conferences and Festschriften mean that he or she is less likely to seek out refereed journals as a forum. Colleagues read the articles and evaluate them--and the scholar--on the merits. Publications on the Middle Ages: Exclusively on the Middle Ages (5th-16th centuries): Books (2): The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Jewish Publication Society, 1979. Softcover edition, Jason Aronson, 1996. Chosen for inclusion in the American Council of Learned Societies’ History E-Books Project. Introduction reprinted in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict, ed. by Jeremy Cohen, New York, 1991, pp. 484-513. Awarded the John Nicholas Brown Prize for 1983 by the Medieval Academy of America. Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration? (with Gerald J. Blidstein, Sid Z. Leiman, and Aharon Lichtenstein). Edited by Jacob J. Schacter. Part II: Medieval and Early Modern Times (pp. 57-141). Jason Aronson, 1997. Finalist, Jewish Book Award in Jewish Thought, 1999. Articles (23): From Crusades to Blood Libels to Expulsions: Some New Approaches to Medieval Antisemitism. The Second Victor J. Selmanowitz Memorial Lecture. Touro College Graduate School of Jewish Studies. 1997. (Booklet) “Sephardic and Ashkenazic Messianism in the Middle Ages: An Examination of the Historiographical Controversy” (in Hebrew). Forthcoming in a still confidential Festschrift. “A Generation of Scholarship on Jewish-Christian Interaction in the Medieval World,” Tradition 38:2 (Summer, 2004): 4-14. “Jacob Katz on Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages.” In The Pride of Jacob: Essays on Jacob Katz and his Work, ed. by Jay M. Harris, Cambridge, Mass., 2002, pp. 41-63. "How Did Nahmanides Propose to Resolve the Maimonidean Controversy?" In Meah She’arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. by Ezra Fleischer et al., Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 135-146. "On the Image and Destiny of Gentiles in Ashkenazic Polemical Literature" (in Hebrew). In Facing the Cross: The Persecutions of 1096 in History and Historiography, ed. by Yom Tov Assis et al., Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 74-91. "On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity: The Search for the Historical Jesus." In Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. by E. Carlebach, J.M. Efron, and D.N. Myers, Hanover and London, 1998, pp. 25-39. "'The Wisest of All Men': Solomon's Wisdom in Medieval Jewish Commentaries on the Book of Kings." In Hazon Nahum: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought and History presented to Dr. Norman Lamm on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Yaakov Elman and Jeffrey S. Gurock, New York, 1997, pp. 93-114. "The Barcelona Disputation: A Review Essay." AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies 20 (1995): 379-388. "Christians, Gentiles, and the Talmud: A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Response to the Attack on Rabbinic Judaism." In Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter, ed. by Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewöhner, Wiesbaden, 1992, pp. 115-130. "Some Ironic Consequences of Maimonides’ Rationalist Approach to the Messianic Age" (in Hebrew). Maimonidean Studies 2 (1991): 1-8 (Hebrew section). English translation in The Legacy of Maimonides: Religion, Reason, and Community, ed. by Yamin Levy and Shalom Carmy, New York, 2006, pp. 79-88. "Ramban." In Great Figures in Jewish History, ed. by Joseph Dan and Judy Baumel, Tel Aviv, 1991, pp. 77-84. (In Russian. Translated by the editorial staff.) "Response." In J. Gutmann et al., What Can Jewish History Learn From Jewish Art?, New York, 1989, pp. 29-38. "On Miracles and Nature in Nahmanides" (in Hebrew). Dacat 19 (1987): 169-170. A rejoinder. "Towards the Clarification of a Difficult Passage in R. Joseph Kara's Commentary to Isaiah" (in Hebrew). Zion 52 (1987): 114-116. "Mission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of the High Middle Ages." American Historical Review 91 (1986): 576-591. "The Study of the Early Ashkenazic Rabbinate" (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 53 (1984): 479-487. A review essay. "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides." In Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in his Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. by Isadore Twersky, Cambridge, Mass., 1983, pp. 107-128. "Cum Nimis Absurdum and the Conversion of the Jews." Jewish Quarterly Review 70 (1979): 41-49. "Christian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries." Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): 287-303. "Gilbert Crispin, Alan of Lille, and Jacob ben Reuben: A Study in the Transmission of Medieval Polemic." Speculum 49 (1974): 34-47. "The Attitude of St. Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews." Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 40 (1972): 89-108. "St. Peter Damian: His Attitude toward the Jews and the Old Testament." Yavneh Review 4 (1965): 80-112. (written in college) Primarily or Significantly on the Middle Ages (7): “Texts, Values, and Historical Change: Reflections on the Dynamics of Jewish Law.” In the proceedings of a 2006 Cardozo Law School conference. Forthcoming. “Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos: Some Tentative Thoughts.” In Formulating Responses in an Egalitarian Age, ed. by Marc Stern, Lanham, 2005, pp. 83-108. “The Uses of Maimonides by Twentieth-Century Jewry.” In Moses Maimonides: Communal Impact, Historic Legacy, ed. by Benny Kraut, New York, 2005, pp. 62-72. "On Freedom of Inquiry in the Rambam--and Today" (with Lawrence Kaplan). The Torah U-Madda Journal 2 (1990): 37-50 . "On the Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemic and Exegesis." In Understanding Scripture: Explorations of Jewish and Christian Traditions of Interpretation, ed. by Clemens Thoma and Michael Wyschogrod, New York, 1987, pp. 49-62. Reprinted in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, ed. by Shalom Carmy, Northvale and London, 1996, pp. 131-146. "Anti-Semitism: An Overview." In History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism, ed. by David Berger, Jewish Publication Society, 1986 (softcover edition, 1997), pp. 3-14. "Three Typological Themes in Early Jewish Messianism: Messiah son of Joseph, Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus." AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies 10 (1985): 141-164. Encyclopedia Articles on the Middle Ages (10): Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer, Oxford Dictionary of the Middles Ages. Forthcoming. Polemics (Jewish), with Christians, Oxford Dictionary of the Middles Ages. Forthcoming. "The Nizzahon Vetus." The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History. Forthcoming. “Maimonides.” The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History. Forthcoming. "St. Bernard of Clairvaux." Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages, vol. 7), ed. by Norman Roth. 2002. "The Barcelona Disputation." The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. 1997. "The Paris Disputation." The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. "Nahmanides." The Encyclopedia of Religion 10: 295-297. 1987. "Jewish-Christian Polemics." The Encyclopedia of Religion 11: 389-395. "Galut: The Jewish Conception of Exile." Dictionary of the Middle Ages 5: 346-347. 1985. Reviews of Books on the Middle Ages (10): Dov Schwartz. Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought. AJS Review 24 (1999): 384-388. B. Netanyahu. The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain. Commentary 100:4 (October, 1995): 55-57. Gavin Langmuir. History, Religion and Antisemitism. The American Historical Review 96 (1991): 1498-99. Hyam Maccoby. Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages. Jewish Quarterly Review 76 (1986): 253-257. Jeremy Cohen. The Friars and the Jews. AHR 88 (1983): 93. Jacob Haberman. Maimonides and Aquinas: A Contemporary Appraisal. Jewish Social Studies 44 (1982): 174-176. Isadore Twersky. Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah). AHR 86 (1981): 109. Daniel J. Lasker. Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages. Association for Jewish Studies Newsletter 22 (March, 1978): 16-17, 19. Lenn Evan Goodman. Rambam: Readings in the Philosophy of Moses Maimonides. JSS 38 (1976): 179-181. Jacob Dienstag, ed. Studies in Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas. JSS 38 (1976): 85-87.
YOSSI G: your nit picking and its not your fault. Your leaders who might be huge torah scholars, have had very little impact on the world at large.This is why they are silent agains Chabad, they are silent on most issues including Gush Katif. Bergers is really irrelevant in the big picture, just as many critics of chabad and chassidus are, (and have been in the past). Very little of these critics messages last beyond a short time while the movements they attack have continued to grow for the past 300 years. Tanya, Niggunim, Chassidic concepts and lifestyle are permeating in all corners of the world. What I find even more interesting is how these new Kolels that are popping up in every town that Chabad established claiming to be Authentic Torah, get their ideas and inspiration from Chabad.org I had a laugh when I noticed how the yated neman gave such praise to Berger. In reality, the Yated despises the modern orthodox world. However since he is critical of Chabad, he somehow became a Gadol (at least for that issue). Berger is irrelevant.
“ggg” writes that “Berger has published nothing but his dissertation and a half dozen articles. Most of his time and articles have been reviews and polemics to defend his YU vision.” Because a friend asked me if this is true, I’m afraid that I have an obligation (to YU if not to myself) to post—with great reluctance--the briefest possible correction for the record. The much revised and expanded dissertation was indeed published and awarded the Medieval Academy of America’s prize for a best first book in medieval studies. A co-authored book including my book-length contribution was a Finalist for the Jewish Book Award. There are two edited books of scholarly essays. The English and updated Hebrew version of the Lubavitch book are not without scholarly content. A non-academic little book written with Michael Wyschogrod has saved a number of Jews from conversion to Christianity and is thus more important than any of my academic work. My cv lists 62 articles of which at least 34 constitute academic scholarship by any definition. (I include in this count four article-length review essays). In these 62 I do not include book reviews (even though some of these should count) and encyclopedia articles. In the list of 34, I exclude articles in Commentary, symposium contributions to Tradition and Commentary, and all but two articles dealing with recent Jewish-Christian relations (even though they too should count). There are also six forthcoming articles, at least three of which constitute academic scholarship in the full sense, and one of the two dealing in part with recent Jewish-Christian relations should also count by any reasonable definition.
Giovanni: I think this is ultimately the million-dollar question; as I said when I first posted on this subject, one of the reasons why I scholar should avoid polemics is because it poisons the well in terms of the recpetion of his or her scholarship. Another reason why is because the polemics themselves tend to be boring to everyone except the scholar himself/herself. David Berger seems to demonstrate both flaws, in pristine form.
David, As a result of the outrageous attack you wrote, sadly you now are defending your career. Was it worth it?
Correction: The article on "Some Ironic Consequences of Maimonides' Rationalistic Messianism" should have have been classified among those that are significantly but not exclusively about the Middle Ages.
Firstly, I am a Lubavitcher. I learned in Lubavitcher yeshiva and my father is a shliach. I once thought the rebbe was the moshiach. That, however, ended when he died. I now believe that the rebbe has as much a chance of being the redeemer as King David (about whom we say lives forever), Rabbi David Berger, or Bob Dylan. (Note: I chose two living people and two dead ones.) Secondly, I believe that Dr. Berger’s quixotic battle is, at least in his mind, “for the sake of heaven.” I also believe (or would like to believe) that Dr. Berger takes no joy in having become the poster child of those whose hatred of Lubavitch proceeds the “rebbe is moshiach” issue. While some of Dr. Berger’s recent articles have been mean spirited and some of his latest arguments have bordered on personal attacks, I cannot fault him. My fellow Lubavitchers have done a very good job pillorying him and he is only human. That being said I believe Dr. Berger is misguided in his battles against those who say that the rebbe is moshiach. Firstly, the number of Lubavitchers who believe the rebbe is moshiach is not as large as he claims. While I do not have empirical research to prove my point, I can reference my social circles as anecdotal evidence. The number of meshichistim amongst my friends and former classmates do not exceed the number of those who are anti-meshichistim (considering that I am an “anti” it is probably skewed towards more “antis”). This is not to argue that meshichistim do not exist, nor is it to claim that they are in the minority; my point is only that meshichistim do not comprise the vast majority of Lubavitchers as Dr. Berger asserts. (I must admit that my frends may be pulling the wool over my eyes, as Dr. Berger has accused Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky of doing, based on a letter Rabbi Krinsky sent to Lubavitch donors.) Secondly, if we were to ask my fellow Lubavitchers who believe the rebbe is moshiach: “What would you do if Rabbi David Berger announced tomorrow that he is the moshiach?” Many would say they would wholeheartedly follow Rabbi Berger to the Holy Land . (Perhaps this question should be the litmus test that, as Dr. Berger suggests, we put before all Lubavitcher rabbis, ritual slaughterers and communal leaders). My point being that even the “belief” on the part of “the average” Lubavitcher meshichist that the rebbe is moshiach is more akin to the declaration: “I’d like to believe that the rebbe is moshiach,” rather than “I believe the rebbe is moshiach to the exclusion of anyone else.” Again, I am basing this on my social circles, which include shluchim, meshichistin teaching in “anti-Meshichist yeshivas,” and anti-meshichistin teaching in “meshichist yeshivas”. Many Lubavitcher meshichists still cling to the belief that the rebbe is moshiach because to them giving it up would call into question their worldview, or worse their view of the rebbe (This is an observation, not a justification). In this way, my fellow Lubavitchers are similar to those within the Bush administration, especially our vice president, who cling to the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (I am not trying to be flippant here). Rightly or wrongly, it was this belief that committed Lubavitchers “to battle” and giving it up would call into question their justification for the “war.” So these Lubavitchers hold on to this belief, or at least give it lip service. Side Note: While we can argue about the validity of the texts my fellow Lubavitchers use as “proofs” for their argument that Moshiach can come from the dead, they can still (properly or improperly, I do not purport to be a Torah scholar) point to various “sources” in Talmud and other Jewish texts. Using questionable texts has been part of Jewish tradition. Just ask those Sephardim, and Lubavitchers, who do not eat milk and fish together, especially when many Torah scholars believe that this edict was not the ruling of Maimonides, but a printing error. (As for the elohistin or those who claim the rebbe didn’t die, Please. You cannot blame meshichist Lubavitchers for these people any more than you can blame Rabbi Chaim Vital, the Arizal or Rabbi Yosef Karo for the Kabbalah Center. You also cannot blame the tenets and actions of Israeli meshichism on their American counterparts. Let’s face it, religious fundamentalism is alive and well in the Holy Land and the Israeli branches of Judaism are often beyond the pale of what we Americans Jews believe. This applies to the Reform movement whose Israeli branch does not accept patrilineal descent; the Israeli branch of Conservative Judaism that still believes that Torah is the word of God; religious Zionists in Israel whose theology of “Ischaltah Degeultah” is at times as troublesome to Americans as meshichism; and Lubavitcher meshichistim who consider their Israeli counterparts to be beyond the pale and controlled by thugs. Finally, I should note here that the belief of a “rebbe” as an avatar like being and a conduit to heaven is not germane to Lubavitch. It is part of much Chasidic philosophy, for example, within Breslov, and can also be found in the writings of the students of the Ba'al Shem Tov and Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritch. ) Having said this, I believe that Dr. Berger is missing the point of meshichism. While, on the surface it seems to be an issue of theology, scratch that surface and I believe you will see that meshichism is an anti-elitist backlash. Meshichistin are by and large Crown Heightsers and Ba’alei teshuva (I know this is an oversimplification). This is not to disparage these groups. However, the common thread between them is that in his lifetime, the rebbe treated these groups as he did the Lubavitch elite, those who served as shluchim and those with “yichus”. Since the rebbe’s passing, however, these two groups, especially Crown Heightsers have lost their champion. Many Lubavitchers have left Crown Heights to Monsey, Flatbush and other parts of New York, especially anti-Meshichists, just to get out of Crown Heights. Queens (the site of the rebbe’s grave) has, for many Lubavitchers, replaced Crown Heights as the center of Lubavitch (The pilgrimage by chasidim to the burial ground of their rebbe is also not germane to Lubavitch. Again, ask a Breslover about the importance of Uman). In fact, many anti-Meshichists, avoid Crown Heights entirely when visiting New York , or refer to Crown Heights , and especially “770,” as “the occupied territories”. Lubavitch, unlike other “Frum” Jewish communities, both Chasidic and “black hat”, is unique in that its best and brightest are sent away from its “headquarters”. It is not unusual to see young Lubavitcher Torah scholars living in “ergetz vu,” Mississippi, or serving as Chabad House rabbis at universities. In other “Frum” community, these young men and women would be the “roshei yeshivas” and teachers of the next generation. While this may sound somewhat disparaging to my Crown Heights brethren, the exodus of our best and brightest out of Crown Heights over the past 50 years has led to “brain drain” within the neighborhood that calls itself “Lubavitch World Headquarters.” If you are a smart and dedicated Lubavitcher, staying in Crown Heights is not an option. (There are many brilliant Lubavitchers living in Crown Heights, but you get my point) It may therefore come as no surprise that in “post 3 Tammuz” Lubavitch, the brain trust that leads the movement (Agudat Chasidei Chabad) is by-and-large comprised of non-Crown Heightsers (with Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky being the obvious exception). As for ba’alei teshuva: The “frum” world’s dirty little secret has always been that while it welcomes ba’alei teshuva into the community with open arms, once inside that fold, the frum community treats ba’alei teshuva like second class citizens. Lubavitch was unique in that while the chauvinism against Ba’alei teshuva was displayed by many “FFBs”, the rebbe countered this with his unabated love and support of Ba’alei teshuva. With the rebbe gone, however, Lubavitch has become as bad as the rest of the frum world and Ba’alei teshuva have lost their supporter. This brings us to the Moshiach wars, which on the whole pits Crown Heightsers against most shluchim, ba’alei teshuva against lifers and “mainstream Lubavitchers” against “the fringe.” I believe that Meshichism is more of a social struggle between the “Have nots” and the “haves” as it is about believing that my dead rebbe is coming back as the moshiach. Crown Heightsers and “the fringe” are attempting to reclaim their role within the nexus of the Lubavitcher world. The chant of Yechi has become their weapon, and 770 has become their battleground. (Dr. Berger, I believe your problem is that you are a historian. If you were a sociologist like Dr. Samuel Heilman, you’d be eating this up.) I admit that I am oversimplifying things. But I believe that my version of the story is closer to the truth than the one being promoted by Dr. Berger (or perhaps, like the Gaon of Vilna, the one being fed to him by those with a bone to pick with Lubavitch). I believe that if Dr. Berger dug deep into the matter, and perhaps took people at their word, he would see that his portrait of Lubavitch is skewed and that we Lubavitchers are not all rabid messianists, and even those of us who believe the rebbe is moshiach (and I am not one of those) are not violating halacha (I admit that some have crossed the line. But I am not here to defend those people). And since I believe that his heart is pure, I am sure that this will bring much joy to Dr. Berger.
My response to Giovanni and Marc is in footnote 5 of chapter 13 of my book on Lubavitch. It reads as follows: "The failure to take this development seriously has led more than one person to suggest that I stop wasting my time on it. A very distinguished scholar who is an observant Jew urged me to remain focused on the Middle Ages, where I do important work. In other words, I should spend all my time studying what is really significant, namely, Jewish arguments against Christianity in the Middle Ages, rather than diverting my attention to the trivial issue of whether Jews still believe those arguments. I wonder what this scholar tells his students about the uses of history." In other words, if I did not think that Judaism itself was imperilled by the effective legitimation of Lubavitch messianism and avodah zarah, of course I would not subject myself to all the aggravations of this campaign. In still other words, for anyone who cares about Judaism and sees the situation as I do, academic publications, whatever their significance, are utterly trivial compared to the issue before us. It is equally clear that someone who maintains that the recognition of those who promote Christian-style false messianism as Orthodox rabbis is a matter of little or no consequence for Judaism will be puzzled at my willingness to pay a price for these efforts.
One addendum: The list of 34 also excludes everything I've written about Lubavitch, even an article that appeared in Modern Judaism, which is a refereed scholarly journal.
Yeshiva University should have at least one professor who is willing to stand publicly and speak the truth about Chabad. Thank God they now do. In my view, the only good things about Chabad are that they follow our calendar and pronounce Hebrew reasonably correctly.
Chabad pronounce Hebrew well, you say? Sure, provided you like your Hebrew pronounced with a thick Glitzianer Yiddish accent. Since when, for example, does the FIRST syllable of Shabbos. How does the plural of shaliach become shloochim?
If the intellectual opponents of Chabad were all as lightweight as "lenewyorkais," Chabad would have nothing to worry about: Lubavitch hasidim, for the record, do not speak either Hebrew or Yiddish with a "Galitsianer" (or, in his less-than-literate transliteration "Glitzianer") accent: the shtetl Lubavitsh was/is in eastern Byelorus and the Lubavitsh hasidim count in Jewish-cultural terms as "Litvakes" (however much the idea of "Litvak" hasidim goes against cultural stereotypes). Both their Yiddish and their Hebrew is standard "Litvish" or Lithuanian. As to how "Shabbos" takes the stress on the first syllable and the plural of "sheliach" becomes "shlikhim," this is just standard Ashkenazic pronunciation--the way Hebrew has been pronounced by millions of Ashkenazic Jews for over a millenia. The origins of this pronunciation--in fact, the whole distinction between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Hebrew--can be traced to dialectical variations in Hebrew from the Land of Israel in the Gaonic period; both are authentic, equally correct uses of the language. But of course, why deal with facts when you've got insults at your disposal? Why confront the idea that Judaism just might be a pluralistic culture of many languages, customs, and practices when it's so much easier to assume that the way you were taught is the only correct one? Nu? Nu!
Dear Mr. Mark Brukhes---Indeed you are correct in this point: it is silly to argue over accents and pronunciations Maybe I was thinking of a larger point, the way Chabad and other Hasidim sanctify Yiddish as a second lashon kodesh, rather than a secular Jewish language of a certain place and period. Sort of the way Hasidim sanctify a particular style of fur hat from an earlier century and turn it into eternal religious garb. Anyway, that's not the big point, which is the silliness of the concept of messiah redeeming the Jews from their earthly problems. As Elie Wiesel has said, it is obscene to believe a messiah exists when he failed to come during the holocaust. Add to that the egocentrism of thinking that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is messiah because he is OUR Rebbe, and OUR Rebbe is better than all YOUR other Rebbes(as in our daddy can beat your daddy).And third, what's with all this regal terminology (King Messiah, of the Royal House of David). Do all Lubavitchers yearn for a monarchy? I know I don't.
Rabbi Berger: I think your response hinges on the question of whether Chabad is promoting false-messianism and avode zarah. I've been to a lot of Chabad Houses on many occasions and nobody has ever discussed the messiah except in the most general of terms, and no one has ever tried to promote anything that deviates from orthodox Judaism to me (unless you count omitting "veshanru" after "kri'shma" on Friday nights). I don't feel like I've received a counterfeit experience when I've davened with Chabad and I don't think anyone is pulling the wool over my eyes or leading me down false paths. You are simply seeing a different movement than what I have experienced, which is to say that based on my experience your polemic is misplaced: I think you could and should be spending your time on more worthwhile projects. Clarifying topics in medieval history is ultimately more worthwhile than impugning the spiritual integrity and intelligence of living Jews, whether in the Chabad camp, or innocent and naive lost sheep such as myself.
I stand by my comment. Berger has only published his dissertation and 6 articles on medieval Jewish History. He would not have been awarded tenure at NYU or Columbia. Everything else is not about medieval Jewish History or not really peer reviewed. Book reviews, even when essays, are not peer reviewed to the same standard. Likewise, articles that appear in conference volumes when you are an invited speaker are only lightly reviwed. Most of his 34 are in Tradition, Torah uMaddah magazine or conference volumes. Most of his content is about defending his version of Orthodoxy, reviews of Samuel Heilman, Irving Greenberg, Menachem Kellner, and others who violate Berger's perception. He even tries to cite an anti-missionary tract he wrote to prove he is a scholar! It is nice that he is an ideologue for Orthodoxy, but that does not make him a medieval historian, let alone an important one.
Below are his 6 articles in 30 years. Even if he shows that 3 or 4 more may have been peer reviewed it still does not amount to much. One of the 6 is his MA thesis. He is a lightweight. He is not an active engaged scholar of Jewish history. He does polemics. He did not understand that he was to study polemics not write them. Gilbert Crispin, Alan of Lille, and Jacob ben Reuben : a study in the transmission of medieval polemic Speculum 49,1 (1974) 34-47 Three typological themes in early Jewish messianism : Messiah son of Joseph, rabbinic calculations, and the figure of Armilus AJS Review 10, 2 (1985) 141-164 How did Nahmanides propose to resolve the Maimonidean controversy? Me'ah She'arim (2001) 135-146 The attitude of St. Bernard of Clairvaux toward the Jews Proceedings - American Academy for Jewish Research 40 (1972) 89-108 1972 The Barcelona disputation AJS Review 20,2 (1995) 379-388 Christian heresy and Jewish polemic in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Harvard Theological Review 68,3-4 (1975) 287-303
A non-academic little book written with Michael Wyschogrod has saved a number of Jews from conversion to Christianity and is thus more important than any of my academic work. -------------- Which (if true) pales in comparison to the number of Jews whom Chabad has saved from conversion, cults, destitution, prison, suicide and many other horrible things L"A.
Yasher-koyekh, Yaakov: your posting is just what this discussion, and the Jewish world, has needed! (By the way, do you really think there's a chance that Bob Dylan is the messiah?! [:-)]
Marc, Do you have a better candidate then Bob??
Dear Yaakov, You kind of caught me at a bad time: I'm fresh out of ideas. If Bob is too busy touring right now for the responsibilities, maybe we can leave it to Al Gore to save the world?!
It's so easy to be critical. Everyone can do it. We are born (or taught) with this innate ability to be critical, it's as if we all have PHDs in "Critical Studies". Ahh, but to spot the good points…? To raise up the glass and see it 1/2 FULL, this takes a real Talmud chacham, not to mention a mentsch! I think it comes down to the moshul of 2 talmidim who were watching Yonatan ben Uziel learning and both saw the pillar of fire which singed a bird flying over head. The "chasid" remared "Wow, what davakus HaShem" and the "litvak" commented, but who will pay damages to the owner of the bird" more to the point, Jews have been walking on egg shells regarding the issue of Moshiach ever since the advent of Chistianity, for good reason. Every once in a while, the issue comes to the forefront, (Shabatie Zvi, Frank) and does spiritual damage to the Jews and therefore the world, possibly even pushing off redemption, as opposed to hastening it. Eventually, learning from history, the movement disipates. It is all a matter of clarification, until the Moshiach finally does arrive!
Imagine if a Christian student in the graduate school of yeshivah, a secular federally funded program, was assigned to read books that made fun of Christian beliefs and was told that students need to decide for themselves if Christianity is false. It would be seen as harassment and religious discrimination. And what if those anti-Christian works were not even academic but the professors own orthodox theology? It would be violation of teaching religion in a secular college and could mean the loss of federal funds. Or what if a college professor in another university wrote that Judaism is incorrect. And assigned anti-Jewish readings along with pro-Jewish reading to allow students to make up their own mind. or books stating that Zionism is racism, It would be seen as harassment, a hostile learning environment, bigotry, and possibly a violate of the federal guarantee of civil rights or even hate crime. All of the above could possibly apply to David Berger. The best thing would be for the Chabad students at Yeshiva to serve papers in both state and federal court against Berger (the administration of Yeshivah U should also be named as defendants). Taking him to court for harassment, hostile environment, violation of civil rights, hate speech would help to change the situation, and serve papers on YU for bringing doctrine into a secular graduate school. ALso, Chabad should consider making a movie like "Yeshiva Unbecoming" similar to the movie made about the anti-Zionism at Columbia. All of the above is only a suggestion,and should not be taken as a personal invective or legal advice. Consult with proper counsel before taking the needed action.
I realize this post is coming way L'Achar Ha'Maaseh. Regardless, I feel it needs to be stated that Prof. Berger-in his book- clearly proclaims that if one finds himself in a Minyan of Chabad, he is obligated to leave at once, even if there are exactly 10 men- thus, by walking out, he would be destroying the Minyan. There are multiple places in the Talmud that describe Hashem's anger when He observes a Makom Tefilah fail to produce a Minyan, even if it happens just once. That alone prompts me to dismiss Prof. Berger as any kind of a source on Halachic interpretations of acceptable Jewish relations; all he's doing is promoting intra-Jewish hatred and leaving Hashem to deal with it. I am not a member of Chabad and am far from an expert on their practices and beliefs. However, I am confidently certain that if more Jews spent time reaching out to all the 'lost Yiddin', and spreading Judaism in ways that benefit residents and tourists/visitors alike throughout the world- like Lubavitch does, instead of spending the same time, money and effort bashing their actions, we would all stand to gain so much more from life. Perhaps, Klal Yisroel would become more unified, instead of being so divisive. Maybe then, Moshiach would finally be granted the freedom to be unleashed and to deliver peace to the entire world- Bi'Mheyra Bi'Yomainu!!
1. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn tz”l, known as, ‘The Rebbe,’ was NOT the Mashiach.
Those who erroneously believe him to be the Mashiach that Am Yisrael is waiting for today, are bordering on Christianity, and committing the grave sin of Avodah Zarah, Idolatry.
Idolatry is forbidden in the Torah, and is the Second of the Asseret Hadibrot. Similarly in the case of Breslov with Rav Nachman tz”l.
2. There should be NO MEDIATOR between a person’s tefillot and Hashem.
If a person chooses to use intercession instead of praying directly to Hashem, this is completely Assur.
If the leaders of Lubavitch/Chabad encouraged people to use the “Igrot” /(“Igros”) - including Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, tz”l - they were wrong. Using the Igrot is using intercession. Similarly the practices of
(1) "reading out the Igrot request to a PICTURE of Rabbi Schneersohn tz"l" is direct Avodah Zarah. We are only allowed to pray to Hashem.
(2) sending faxes to the Bet HaChaim should be stopped immediately.
(3) Praying directly to the Tzaddik at the Bet HaChaim is wrong. It causes tremendous tsaar to the Neshamah of the Tzaddik in Shamayim. We pray only to Hashem – directly ourselves. NO mediator is permitted.
These practices are abhorrent and against the Torah. They are assur and forbidden, and should all be stopped.
If the tzaddik advised that people do this in his lifetime – he was wrong. And this must be corrected. Speedily.
TESHUVAH to Hashem should be done speedily instead - by the whole of the Lubavitch organisation especially. The whole of the Lubavitch organisation is currently all refusing to do Teshuvah.
Similarly in the case of Breslov, with those who go Uman to pray directly to the Tzaddik – instead of directly to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. “Intercession” and “mediation” is against the Torah.
The Torah cannot be mixed with Avodah Zarah. This is twisting the Torah, and the Torah must remain straight.
2a. • There should be NO MEDIATOR between a person’s tefillot and Hashem.
Hashem likes to hear the prayers, tefillot, from our OWN mouths. Even if all we know is how to recite the first 3 letters of the Aleph Bet: Aleph, Bet, Gimmel... Our very own tefillot TO HASHEM, are much more precious than anything else.
By going to the Bet HaChaim (cemetery - incorrectly referred to as “the Ohel” by Lubavitch), and lighting a candle, praying, making a request, and then going home – such a person is “leaving it all to the tzaddik” who is not physically alive. You can’t leave it all “to him!”. This is completely Assur and forbidden.
We too, can be tzaddikim – and be like the tzaddik. The tzaddik has already made all his tefillot to Hashem in his lifetime. And these are very precious to Hashem. The tzaddik has now passed on.
Hashem is now waiting for US – to make our OWN tefillot to Him. We pray to Hashem – at all times. If a person is insisting on praying to one of the creations of Hashem, instead of directly to the King Himself, Hashem will say to us, “You are meant to pray to ME!”
Remember that Hashem, our G-d, is a very "JEALOUS G-D" who demands "EXCLUSIVE WORSHIP." (2nd Commandment of the Asseret Hadibrot.)
What is your logic in going there?
The Ashkenazi tradition has encouraged people to do this, and it is very wrong. Teshuvah to Hashem must be done quickly.
3. The Jewish People is a “Holy People.” “Am Kadosh.” We are referred to as being Hashem’s special “Treasure.” We are a “Holy Nation,” and so holy, that we are to emulate the Cohanim, who are of a much higher stature than the rest of the Jewish People. One day, we will all be on the level of a “Kingdom of Priests.”
Hashem has told us, “.…Ve’atem tiheyu li Mamlechet Kohanim ve’goi kadosh…” (Yitro, 19:5-6)
“…And you shall be to Me, a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, and a HOLY NATION….”
The Benei Yisrael must follow the example of the true Cohanim. We should emulate the Cohanim in our daily lives. The Cohanim are not allowed to go into any cemetery (Jewish or not Jewish), as they cannot come into contact with ANY meitim whatsoever. We too, should emulate the Kohanim in our daily lives, and be pure like them.
We too, should not be coming into contact with meitim where we can help it.
Hashem has told us, “.…Ve’atem tiheyu li Mamlechet Kohanim ve’goi kadosh…” (Yitro, 19:5-6)
“…And you shall be to Me, a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, and a HOLY NATION….”
A person’t tefillot, prayers, from the Kotel, or from his or her own house are truly delightful to Hashem. A person can also go to the Kotel to pray, and make the journey there, to pray to Hashem. Hashem’s Presence is always there.
4. Why was the place of Moshe Rabeinu, the very greatest of all the Prophets, kept hidden from us? Precisely so that Moshe would c”v never be worshipped. So that people would never pray to Moshe, c”v, instead of directly to Hashem, themselves. The Torah states very clearly:
“…velo yada ish et kevurato ad hayom hazeh” (Vezot Haberacha 34:6) “…and no man knows the place that he was buried even to this day.”
If people are praying to a tzaddik, who is finite – and of far lesser stature than Moshe Rabeinu – instead of to Hashem – who is Infinite – that is avodah zarah.
If people wish to go to the Kivrei Tzaddikim to pray to Hashem from there, that is their choice. Far better, is to encourage people to go instead to the most holy place in the world – the Kotel. Hashem’s Presence is always there.
The Kotel is where people should be going to pray to Hashem. Not the Bet HaChaim.
5. If people want to pray to anyone else, and make requests of any being other than Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they might as well join Christianity.
When Moshe Rabeinu prayed, he prayed to Hashem. He did not pray to any Malachim or any celestial beings. These are all the creations of Hashem.
We are not allowed to pray to the creations of Hashem.
Similarly, with regard to the Selichot, and the Neilah prayer for Yom Kippur in the Ashkenazi tradition - they include direct Tefillot and requests to Malachim.
The Malachim are the creations of Hashem.
We are not allowed to pray to any Malachim.
This is completely assur and causes very great damage and harm. I emphasise that this is something very grave which needs to be rectified as well - speedily.
The Selichot and the Neilah Tefillah for Yom Kippur should be amended speedily to remove all prayers and requests to Malachim.
6. The false argument used by Lubavitch to permit intercession on a person’s behalf, is the act of Calev ben Yefuneh praying at the Cave of Machpelah in Chevron. He prayed for success in his mission of “spying out” the Land, Eretz Yisrael.
No one can use this as a precedent for asking the Tzaddikim - and specifically, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn tz"l - who are no longer alive physically on earth, to pray on a person’s behalf. This causes them tremendous suffering in Shamayim. This is twisting the Torah, and the Torah cannot ever be twisted.
The reason Calev’s act cannot be used as a precedent, is that NO ONE, can be compared to the supreme Kedusha of the Avot, of Avraham, Yitzchak ve’Yaakov Avinu.
We pray the Amidah 3 times a day, and we always recall the great merit of the Avot in the very first Beracha. What can be greater than that when we pray to Hashem?
This does need to be corrected very quickly, to be in line with the Torah.
7. When people need help, why doesn’t Lubavitch teach people to look inside the Torah, which is Eternal and Infinite - instead of letters written to other people by Rabbi Schneersohn tz”l during his lifetime?
Why doesn't Lubavitch choose the very greatest of all prophets, Moshe Rabbeinu?
8. Moshe Rabeinu is the greatest of all prophets, and no other prophet was equal to him.
“Zichru Torat Moshe Avdi” we are told in Malachi (3:22)
There simply is no comparison between Moshe Rabbeinu and Rabbi Schneersohn tz”l, although Rabbi Schneersohn tz”l was a Tzaddik and a very righteous and good man.
Moshe Rabbeinu was the greatest of all prophets, and we do not even pray in the name of Moshe. Neither do we pray in the name of David Hamelech, whose descendent is the Mashiach.
However, in the very first Beracha of the Amidah, the silent prayer to Hashem containing our requests, we recall the merit of the Avot: “…..Elokei Avraham, Elokei Yitzhak Velokei Yaakov….” “….The G-d of Avraham, the G-d of Yitzhak and the G-d of Yaakov…” The beracha is concluded with “Magen Avraham”.
In summary: (1) We pray to Hashem – at all times.
(2) There should be NO mediator between Hashem and a person’s tefillot – otherwise this is Assur.
Therefore the practice of using the “Igrot” /(“Igros”) for "requests" and "guidance" should be stopped. Similarly the practices of sending faxes to the Bet HaChaim, and praying to the tzaddik at the Bet HaChaim instead of directly to Hashem ourselves - should be stopped immediately. They are abhorrent and against the Torah.
The reason for this is that these practices use intercession. And the use of a “mediator” or someone to “intercede on a person’s behalf” to Hashem, is assur. Teshuvah to Hashem must be done - very speedily.