Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Rebbe and Rav Kaduri

Reposting.



They are giving each other blessings and talk about rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdosh.

Rav Kaduri was always a big friend of the Rebbe and Chabad. When one of the rabbis of Israel said something negative about the Rebbe, Rav Kaduri asked: “Who is this fly that raises its wing against a lion?” After gimmel Tammuz, Rav Kaduri also talked very hopefully and prophetically about the Rebbe and speedily approaching geulah.

May the merit of the two giants protect us and bring the Era of Mashiach speedily in our days, when every child will see with his eyes the contents of their teachings, Kabbala and Chassidus, the Essence of Torah, revealed in the physical matter of the world.

Besides the absolute beauty and seriousness of the moment, it was a little funny to watch how Rav Kaduri gives the Rebbe a “rabbi handshake” — a handshake which seems to go on forever, when the one shaking your hand (usually a rabbi) keeps holding on to it and talking to you.

17 comments:

theRealPianist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
theRealPianist said...

Wasn't it Rav Baba Sali on said that to the now sephardic authority Rabbi?

Crawling Axe said...

Possibly.

mekubal said...

Wasn't it Rav Baba Sali on said that to the now sephardic authority Rabbi?

Yes, and that was when the now Sephardic Authority sided with the Rebbe against the Ben Ish Hai, in ruling that young girls should light Shabbat candles.

It is quite amazing how stories grow and distort.

On that note, if you notice the video Rav Kaduri ZTz"L tries to pull his hand away numerous times, but as I have said elsewhere, students of Rav Kaduri ZTz"L and Chassidim of the Late Lubavitcher Rebbe have very different views of what took place in that video, and after.

A Suede Ḥossid said...

So, why would Rav Kaduri come to the Rebbe, if he considered Chassidus Chabad “unclean”, as you said he told you?

I didn’t say that on DixieYid’s block, but I will say it here: I think you’re poshut a liar.

mekubal said...

So, why would Rav Kaduri come to the Rebbe, if he considered Chassidus Chabad “unclean”, as you said he told you?

Like I said there, he went once, in 1990, before the Meshiahcist thing took off and before the "Coronation" of the Rebbe as Mashiah.

You will note that he never returned. Which is equally telling. He made a point of visiting those he considered Gedolim each time he visited the US. But after the Mashiah thing broke in Chabad, he never returned to the Rebbe.

The way a great many Gedolim viewed Chabad Chassidus changed after that. As I said on the Dixie Yid blog, go to his Yeshiva and pick up a copy of Chitas, you will find that Tanya and Sichot have been removed. Two other Yeshivot affiliated with him Bet E-l and Ahavat Shalom don't allow Lubavitch books in the door. In the Yeshiva of another of his students Rav Beniyahu Shmueli Shlita you will also find Chitas with Tanya and Sichot removed.

Rav David Batzri Shlita(another of Rav Kaduri's students) probably has the most positive view of Chabad, which is that its Chassidus is Tahor, but is Meshiahism is Tuma.

As I have already stated the Meshiahist thing changed the way a great number of Gedolim viewed Chabad overall, and quite honestly that is sad, but it remains a fact on the ground. The question had to be asked, and has by a great many Gedolim how could something of holiness produce something that, in their view, is so contrary to the Jewish faith.

One of my good friend, Chavruta and Rav of mine, was for years a Maggid Shiur in a well respected Kabbalistic Yeshiva, however, he was forced to stop because he refused not to draw upon the teachings of the Tanya, and other Lubavitch works. He was put out of two other Yeshivot for that as well. He now gives shiurim privately in his home, and learns only with Chavrutot in the one Kabbalistic Yeshiva that would let him stay provided he didn't teach groups.

So to sum up, why would Rav Kaduri go to see the Rebbe in 1990, because at that point, except for one Israeli extremist, no one was concerned about Chabad or Chabad messianism. Why would Rav Kaduri say to a student in 2000 to stay away from Chabad? Because at that point there was no way to learn Chabad Chassidus detached from its Messianism, and most viewed it as highly problematic.

The other issue you have to contend with, is that Rav Kaduri often said things, "for the needs of the hour." Take his three best known students for example, Rav Hillel, Rav Shmueli, and Rav Batzri. Each claims to have learned a shita for introducing a student to Kabbala from Rav Kaduri, yet each is completely different. Just as each of those Rabbanim will claim that they heard their views on Chabad Chassidus from Rav Kauri. Are two of them, Has V'Hallila, liars?

A Suede Ḥossid said...

What does “Moshiach thing” have to do with machloikes between Kabballa and Chassidus?

Saying that many “gedolim” viewed Chabad differently after the “Moshiach thing”, you’re bismerching the said “gedolim”, since to change one’s view to a shitta of yiddishkeit and to a godol of the stature of the Rebbe because of that is a sign of amaratztus and not at all of gadlus.

There is no way to learn ma’amorim of Rebbe Rashab or Tanya or Torah Ohr or Derech Mitzvosecho detached from the fact that many chassidim consider the Rebbe Moshiach? What are you talking about? It’s true that the idea of the Rebbe being Moshiach is a direct product of Chassidus Chabad, but that merely means that it is a true idea, since Chassidus Chabad is a shitta in Torah. To disregard Chassidus because it leads to something which you (because of amaratztus) find objectionable is quite ridiculous.

In the end it always comes down to the same thing: ignorance-driven hatred.

In any event, I am done discussing this.

A Suede Ḥossid said...

One of my good friend, Chavruta and Rav of mine, was for years a Maggid Shiur in a well respected Kabbalistic Yeshiva, however, he was forced to stop because he refused not to draw upon the teachings of the Tanya, and other Lubavitch works. He was put out of two other Yeshivot for that as well. He now gives shiurim privately in his home, and learns only with Chavrutot in the one Kabbalistic Yeshiva that would let him stay provided he didn't teach groups.

What does this have to do with anything?

What if he was fired (or forced to stop) because he refused to draw upon Arizal and only quoted Ramak? Obviously the people who fired him wanted their students to be taught the shittos of Kabbala found in Chabad Chassidus. It’s their right.

mekubal said...

Saying that many “gedolim” viewed Chabad differently after the “Moshiach thing”, you’re bismerching the said “gedolim”, since to change one’s view to a shitta of yiddishkeit and to a godol of the stature of the Rebbe because of that is a sign of amaratztus and not at all of gadlus.


Satmar Rebbe
Aharon Kotler
Yaakov Kaminetsky
Elya Svei
Elazar Mann Shach
S.Z. Auerbach
Chaim Shaul Karelitz
Menashe Klein
Yaakov Weinberg
Aharon Feldman
Shlomo Eliyahu Miller
Moshe Heinemann
Yehuda Henkin
Avraham Ravitz
Ahron Soloveichik

All are Amei Ha'aretz? All are ignorant? All certainly had their views of Chabad Chassidus changed at some point on account of Chabad messianism.

Since when is to change one's few based upon new developments amaratztus? R' Yannai entered the Kodesh Kodehshim for 80yrs as the Kohen HaGadol, however when he adopted apikorsis views, he was deposed by ChaZaL. From this we get the Talmudic dictum so often quoted that we do not judge a person as a true Tzadik while they yet live, for it can change... If it could happen in such a holy generation while the Beit HaMikdash still stood, could it not happen in our own? To say not is true Chutzpah.

Mor said...

Whoooa. Hold on. Do you realize how absurd it is to group Rav Soloveichik, Rav Feldman and Rav Shach all together? Rav Shach held already in the 80s that Chabad was appikorsus. Rav Feldman holds that it is not appikorsus but that it is a serious error. Rav Soloveichik held that it is an error but it should not make a difference in the way people deal with Chabad.
It sounds like Rav Kotler, Rav Svei, and Rav Kaduri all agreed with Rav Feldman. Where are your sources for the others?
I would like to point out that even in the "serious error" camp there is a lot of variety. For example, there were those who are only disturbed by post-gimmel Tammuz mishichism but not pre-gimmel Tammuz mishichism, which means that they weren't actually disturbed by anything that the Rebbe said or did.
There are three things: chassidus chabad (tanya, maamorim, etc.), the Rebbe, and chasidei chabad.
Nobody can claim that mishichism did not affect any gadol's opinion of the Rebbe and/or his chossidim. Everybody knows about that. SH is saying that it is amaratzus to discount centuries of chassidus chabad just because you think that right now the chossidim of chabad are in error. And that still stands.
I mean, almost everyone on that list was a misnaged who never studied chassidus anyway. So their opinion on chassidus chabad is basically non-existent. I am sure that none of them told their talmidim to stay away from Tanya.
And if some rabbis in Israel are telling their students to stay away from Tanya, that is silly, it is wrong, it is mean to the students, and it is their problem.

A Suede Ḥossid said...

All are Amei Ha'aretz? All are ignorant?

Hey, I am not the one spreading l"h here. But if you’re going to tell me that Kotler or the person from Bnei Brak opened a ma’amor by Rebbe Rashab, I am going to laugh.

It’s one thing to say: “This is not my shitta, but I respect it as a part of Yiddishkeit.” You can even say: “My shitta is better.” But to say: “This disagrees with my shitta, and therefore it’s appikorsis” is appikorsis itself.

A Suede Ḥossid said...

I heard a story that one time, when the Rebbe visited one of the people you listed (when they were still talking), one of the other people you mentioned was also there. The Rebbe and the first person were discussing an inyan in Kabbolo. At some point, the second person interjected. The first person turned to him and said: “Nisht far dir” (“Not for you”).

mekubal said...

It’s one thing to say: “This is not my shitta, but I respect it as a part of Yiddishkeit.” You can even say: “My shitta is better.” But to say: “This disagrees with my shitta, and therefore it’s appikorsis” is appikorsis itself.

I apparently have come across too strong.

ChV"Sh that I should say, or that I have implied that pure Chabad Chassidus is Apikoris.

Yes I do think that the Meshiachist movement is problematic, but not necessairly apikorsis. I agree with Rav Menashe Klein that it besmirches the Rebbe's good name.

I believe the Elokist movement is absolutely apikorsis.

Unfortunately, at least here in Israel, it is near impossible to separate who is who. I the US not so much a problem, however here the Meshiachist movement, and even more, HaShem Yerachem the Elokist movement is rampant.

The issue I then have, and why I honestly believed that Rav Kaduri ZTz"L steered me away from Chabad Chassidus here in Israel is as follows. First I don't believe, and neither did he(at least as he explained himself to me) that one can learn Chassidus simply by reading the books, just as one cannot learn Kabbalah simply from reading the books, Chassidus in his and my opinion must be learned from a Chassid of that Chassidus. The issue then becomes you may not know that the person teaching you is an Elokist for quite some time, and by then the damage could already be done.

trp said...

Perhaps one shouldn't learn Kabbalah due to what happened with certain individuals in the 17th century? Perhaps one might misunderstand? Or Ch'V the teacher might really be connected to the thoughts prominent in that day?

Needless to say, those arguments were long defeated, and were really used as an excuse to Villainize the holy Baal Shem Tov.

A Suede Ḥossid said...

As Menashe commented on Dixie Yid’s blog, someone shouldn’t learn Kabbolo exactly for the reason of it being misinterpreted in a fashion shown there: “I believe this is why learning straight kabbalah was assered long ago for those not ready for it. You see here its misapplication run wild into borderline kefira.”

But that’s the danger of Kabbolo itself, without the guidance of Chassidus.

I totally agree that Chassidus should be learned with a rav. So does Shas. And it’s very dangerous to learn Shas with a rav, because he may be an appikores (every Jewish Studies department in most universities is filled with them). He may be a secret appikores. In fact, who knows if you can trust those comments in ArtScroll Gemaras?

So, don’t learn Shas.

I mean, the argument is ridiculous. Use your brains and common sense.

A Suede Ḥossid said...

Also, I am yet to meet a Mishichist or an Elokist who would make secret of his views. V’dal.

in the vanguard said...

You left no reference to your Rav Kaduri statement. Where did you get it from, so we can have it accurately? Such quick tangential hits do a disservice to both rabbonim. I remember hearing it was the Baba Sali, and not in the way you spoke it - without reference.

Please be careful in dishing out such stories off the cuff.