|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
The following is referenced in a footnote in the "Biography of the Alter Rebbe" published by Kehot and reportedly edited by the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself to explain why Chassidim callng their Rebbes by the name of G-d is not against Torah teachings or Jewish tradition as is claimed by Avigdor in the accusation against the Alter Rebbe: ואין לתמוה אם ניצוץ מהארת שכינה, נקרא בשם שכינה
There is no need to wonder at a spark of the radiance of the Shechinah being referred to (in Tzavaat HaRivash) as Shechinah.
דהא אשכחן שאפילו מלאך נברא נקרא בשם ה׳, בפרשת וירא, לפירוש הרמב״ן
For we find that even a created angel, which is not a spark of the Shechinah, is referred to by G‑d’s Name in Parshat VaYeira, in the verse,59 “And he said, ‘Lord, do not pass by your servant,” according to the commentary of R. Moses Nachmanides (the Ramban);
וכמו שכתוב: ותקרא שם ה׳ הדובר אליה וכו׳, וכהאי גוונא טובא
and as it is likewise written,60 “And [Hagar] called the name of G‑d Who spoke to her...,” where we are explicitly told that we are speaking of an angel; and many more [passages] like this.
- * *
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=7970 Ariel Sokolovsky 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of my background and education is chabad oriented, this page may contain statements and views which others may disagree with, if anyone feels that I have written only from chabad's viewpoint and not a general viewpoint, either leave me a message on my talk page and I will try to find a non chabad source for it, or write the other viewpoints yourself in a NPOV way. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- The way you presented the Rebbe's comment may or may not represent most Chabad chassidim's true understanding of it, however it does not reflect those of (at least) a major section within Chabad, whicj is much closer to what has been expressed at Chabad Lubavitch#Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers. Perhaps the two differing interpretations represent two factions within Chabad chassidim]]. -- Nahum 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- True. It also does not point out that all other Jewish groups reject these teachings. RK 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was thinking of a differnt sub-section in Chabad Lubavitch. -- Nahum 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The section already starts off with saying that this is according to those that follow kabbalah. Additionaly the statements from the people about chabad would remain applicable even after the section is removed. Furthermore the intention isn't to comepletely remove it, rather the intention is to replace it with a sentence saying that there has been controversy regarding this subject which is elaborated at length in the Tzadik article, and as I explained on the talk page of chabad it is unfair to have just that paragraph without a full background which is able to be put in the Tzadik article but would be too long for the chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think the article should be rewritten and reorganized. It should indubitably include a section on Chabad's unique approach to the tzaddik, but it should also try to avoid being permeated by the Chabad POV, which it currently is. Providing a section on sources, and then sections on major approaches/views, might be apropos. Ergo: General Introduction, Talmudic View, Rabbinic Commentary View (incl. Maimonides), Kabballah View (incl. Chabad's derekh). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- "...it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources."
- How is this POV? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- The part of the other views regarding this is discussed in the chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
No other views are discussed anywhere. You cite a bunch of "proof-texts" that don't show what you claim they do, and then you write that people who don't think that "the Rebbe and God are one" are simply ignorant of the sources. The POV is quite blatant. P.S. The last source that you quoted did generate shockwaves quite quickly in some circles. HKT talk 17:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- When you mentioned other views, I though you were speaking about other views to the other extreme (i.e. that a Tzaddik is God). As I started off the paragraph, this is based upon Kabbalah, if there are people that don't accept Kabbalah and view the soul not as part of God, this wouldn't be. As I stated above if there is anothe POV, which I left out, feel free to add it, (that is what wikipedia is all about.) --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I reread that section of the article, and I think that I now better understand what you were trying to get across. Apparently, you were trying to present the Likutei Sichos remark as similar to other comments from classic sources. You seem to be trying to suggest that "the Rebbe and God are one" is metaphor. Unfortunately, that requires your interpretation and, as such, would be considered original research. HKT talk 07:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was originally referenced in the chabad article and I will reference it again to two different books. I forgot to include the references. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Previous versions of this article violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Until my recent edits, this article only presented the Chabad (Lubavitch) point-of-view. It presented quotes from various eras of Jewish history out of order, out of their historical context, and interspersed with quotes from the Tanya and the Luabvitcher rebbes. This is done in order to convince the reader that the Jewish view of a tzadik is the Chabad view. It totally fails to mention non-Chabad Hasidic views of a tzadik.
When I merely separated Chabad quotes from non-Chabad quotes, all my edits were reverted without comment or discussion. When I tried to present other points of view, all of my edites were reverted without comment or discussion. That's not right.
A contributor even deleted sections that allowed us to mention non-Chabad Hasidic views of a tzadik, such as Modern Orthodox views, non-Orthodox views, and views of Hasidim outside of Chabad. We should not use Wikipedia to push the religious teachings of one group. This is a classic example of POV violation.
Any discussion of this topic should include a historical context. Despite what Chabad adherents might say, the views of rabbis in the Talmud are not identical to the views of Chabad. (The only people who hold this are Chabad hasidim themselves.) Instead, we should present the discussions of a tazdik in the early classic rabbinic literature, such as the Mishna, Tosefta, and the two Talmuds (Bavli and Yerushalmi.) We can then discuss how the concept of a tzadik exists in Kabbalistic literature. We can then examine the range of views about this subject in various Jewish groups: Non-Hasidic Haredim, Chabad Hasidim, non-Chabad Hasidim, Modern Orthodox, and non-Orthodox.
Of course, the article can state something like "According to adherents of Chabad Judaism, the Tanya and the Lubavitcher rebbe provide the correct interpretation of Judaism's view on this issue." We can fully discuss and illustrate their views. Yet our NPOV policy demands that we also discuss the views of multiple Jewish groups. Until recently, this article's self-styled protectors deleted all mention of non-Chabad points of views. We need to be on guard for this. RK 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- RK, your changes were unsourced, if you have sourced statements that there are other notable viewpoints then you are welcome to bring it. The article from Encyclopedia Judaica is not related to any of the changes that you made.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Both versions are deficient. The prior version attempts to present the view of a Tzadik embodying the essence of God, something even most Chassidim dispute (despite popular, distortive propaganda to the contrary). RK's version begins a section with Ref. and Recon. views about normative Judaism, setting the frame of reference according to those movements. It would be better to mention Ref. views unto themselves without resorting to talking about who views what as non-normative. Also, views found in classic sources should indeed be presented first. A position that disputes classic views should be mentioned subsequently. (There are also some citation and attribution issues with some of the quotes. Also, I tried to find the Michtav Me'eliyahu reference, but the citation was inadequate. Anyone mind helping me with a better ref.?) HKT 06:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- HKT, I would never write this article in reference to Reform or Reconstructionist Judaism. I agree with you that such an article would make no sense. All I tried to say was that these movements happen to have views that differ from Chabad Lubavitch. The same is true for Modern Orthodox Judaism, and for Non-Chabad Hasidic Judaism. If you want to reorder or rewrite my wording, please do so.
- As for what Pinchas says, I can't understand him at all. What claims does he imagine are unsourced? The claim itself makes non sense, unless Pinchas believes that every Jew in the world accepts Chabad Lubavitch interpretations of Orthodox Jewish theology? All I did was note that other views exist, and that we should stop randomly giving Chabad quotes interspersed with classical rabbinic teachings.
- As the Encyclopedia Judaica sources clearly prove, the Chabad interpretation of the tzadik doctrine is only one subset of the more general Hasidic interpretation of a tzadik. Just as importantly, the Hasidic interpretation is not identical to a more general rabbinic Jewish view! I agree with what HKT and the Encyclopedia Judaica note: "views found in classic sources should indeed be presented first. A position that disputes classic views should be mentioned subsequently." RK 02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The additions that were made by RK are unsourced. If he wants to say that Reform Jews reject the concept of the Tzadik, he is welcome to do so if he brings sources. Either way it should be in the top of the article not the bottom. The other additions about other Hasidim, should be brought if they can be sourced, otherwise they cannot be brought. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pinchas, you must be joking. No one here will believe that Reform Jews accept ultra-Orthodox Hasidic theology about tzadiks! Many Reform Jews don't even believe that God can reveal himself to man in any way, and most reject all concepts about miracles, and most reject all of Kabbalah! In fact, no Reform authority views Kabbalistic, let alone Chabad, texts as authoritative! In any case, my edit of the article isn't even about that topic, so your incorrect claim is a red herring. Stick to the points: We are forbidden by Wikipedia NPOV policy to push Chabad theology as "the truth". It must be written more like the articles presented from the Encyclopedia Judaica, in their historical context, showing a variety of views. Stop presenting your personal belief system as "the truth". RK 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Compare to peer-reviewed article by a Jewish scholar
As proof that previous versions of this article were biased and inaccurate, please compare the previous versions to this peer-reviewed article. I am attaching here the complete article on Tzadik from the reknowned Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing. Please note that the text is copyrighted. RK 16:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"However, Judaism does not believe in the Tzadik being like God." I deleted this since it is POV (prommotes Rambam's POV over other Rishonim, contradicts Chassidic and Sefardic and Kabbalistic teachings on the subject ) and directly contradicts the tone of the whole article. This could be changed to "ultra rationalist fundmentalist Mimonidean strain of Judaism does not believe in the Tzadik being like God" in that case this would make some sense. Actually I just changed it to "Ultra-rationalist fundmentalist Mimonedian strains of Judaism does not believe in the Tzadik being like God however this opposition to anthropomorphism could have been influenced by the Muslim rationalist philosophy popular at that time."
- Which Rishonim, Chassidic, Sefardic or Kabbalistic teachings disagree with this? From the sources that were brought, it is all a matter of terminology, but not that anyone or Judaism for that matter believes that they are G-d. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
not G-d but "like G-d" Ariel Sokolovsky 16:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Pius XII controversy
Do Jews have any notion of what in means to be a saint within their own religion, other than just among nations ? I am asking this because of the uproar noticed during the Pius XII beatification process, where many Jews felt that he was not a saint, and some later responded that Jews were wannabe Roman Catholics. ADM (talk) (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unmessianic Jews are certainly not wannabe Roman Catholics. For the Jews (Judaism-following, not ethnic), there is still confusion over this really. The Torah-reading lot get bothered by the lack of sacrifices in a temple, which makes it rather hard to see how they can go to heaven, and the most of them have a very loose idea (understandable from the OT alone) exactly what heaven is, but think that if there is a general resurrection, they all go end up there. To my knowledge, Jews do not use the term saint for themselves, and surely have far greater objections to the pope (including the whole idea about Jesus...) than about who the RCs think get special treatment.— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The page should have a section explicitly discussing the significance of the tzadik in hasidism, not in terms of his religious significance, but his social as well; how he functions as leader of the community, counselor, etc.Flygongengar (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)