Could the Rebbe have erred?

I decided to post my side of an exchange with a Lubavitcher blogger on the question whether it is legitimate to maintain that the Rebbe could have been mistaken about any issue. He articulately presented the view that as a tzaddik hador, a tsaddik gamur in the sense that the Tanya defines it, as a new soul, it is impossible for the Rebbe to sin and therefore it is impossible for him also to err. As such, his statements on the imminent coming of the Moschiach and his allusions to the identity of this Moschiach cannot be discounted.

I am a fellow traveler of Lubavitch and frequently daven in a Chabad Shul. I also study Chabad seforim along with other chassidic works. I absolutely agree and have personal experience that the Rebbe was a great man, probably the greatest that I met. However, asserting the he may have made errors is, I think, legitimate. It has become an article of faith in Chabad that the Rebbe cannot have made mistakes. I understand why the Elohists might say something like that, but for others, a respectful assertion that the Rebbe erred in some matters, is within the bounds of respectful disagreement and not a criticism. Some cases of factual errors have been documented. One of the difficulties of opposing the Meshichists is that they have a Rebbe quote for everything. To be able to assert that a a particular statement is, in the light of the passing years an error, would undercut them. As R. Yoel Kahn said: “… there is no basis for their belief”. Reality must be heeded. After all, Moshe Rabbeinu and R. Akiva also made mistakes.

You might say that without prophecy to assert that such a great man made a particular mistake is presumptuous. However, Chazal and rishonim occasionally, albeit very rarely criticized even the Avos. You can argue that they had Ruach Hakodesh and we do not. All that is fine. However, while it is fair to demand respect for a leader of the generation, one should distinguish between theological disagreement and debate, and bashing. I second your call for respectful dialog both within and outside of Chabad.

My question is: Is it possible for tsaddik gomur to make mistakes? A mistake is not a sin. Presumably even a tsadik gomur can miscalculate or not know something, or err in judgment. The doctrine in Tanya does not, to my recollection, impute an inability to miscalculate. We know that sometimes Hashem induces even tsddikim to err for His purposes and it is not imputed tot he tsaddik as a sin. R. Yochanan ben Zakkai comes to mind with “ten li Yavne vchochomeah”. Or, are you forced to say that every person in the Bible and Chazal who ever erred were all beinonim, including such examples as Moshe R., Avrohom Avinu, David Hamelech etc. If yes, the Elohists must be right - for the Rebbe is unlike anyone else in Jewish history.

If you say “atsmus hamelubash b’guf”, does that difficult to understand statement imply infallibility, or could it itself be an error? It can be variously interpreted.

In many ways I am suspended in between. I have an emotional attachment to Chabad and share a history, even with the Rebbe. My personal relationships within Chabad preclude frank questioning for I do not wish to offend and I am enough of an outsider that I might offend. On the other hand, I came up through a very different educational system. I also know enough to question effectively.

For people outside Chabad, meshihisten are those guys who believe that Rebbe remains moshiach at this time vadai. He will return to manifest himself in body and complete the work of tikkunim as he had led the work of completing the birurim. It includes those who believe that he never died; most people can’t follow the subtleties of spiritual versus physical death. It also includes Elohistim, just that they are crazier yet. Outsiders take issue with the notion of asking eitzah though letters and argue that it is “doresh el hameisim”. Within many (not all) circles in Chabad, however, it refers only to those who commit the tactical error of publicly proclaiming the Rebbe as Moschiach.

I think that only those who reserve some doubt - those who believe that the Rebbe is only ‘bechezkas meschiach, or possibly so until disproven, or may be so, would be seen as acceptable (even if not correct) within the general community's consensus. There is a lot of confusion because no one in Chabad has clearly defined what the different positions are.

(There are 4 principles in Chabad that appear novel and have little precedent in previous classical Kabbalistic thought  or other chassidus that can use some clarification for the outside world and may be it would dispel some hostility. I wish someone from Chabad would take on this task.

1.What is the geder of the belief that the Rebbbe is moshiach and what does it actually mean?
2.The concept of atsmus being directly accessible outside of the kav, or derech hahishtalshelus.
3.The concept of ibbur between talmid and Rebbe, which goes beyond anything in other chassidus and certainly missnagdish Torah, and its ability to blur the boundary between life and death.
4.The aforementioned Tsaddik Gomur concept and its implications of infallibility discussed above.)

The concept of a mistake, I think, is very relevant. It preserves respect for certain statements of the Rebbe and by saying that Hashem led him for His own purposes, one can preserve almost everything. On the other hand, by admitting errors we can move past the difficult past two decades.

I would appreciate comments or clarifications from those who understand the topic better than I.

Comments

[yitz..]

I only recently found your blog, but I'd like to comment on how much I like the minimalism of the design. It's great :)

Now on to the subject matter of your post. First of all, you left out another option: There is a movement in Judaism that basically explains all errors of people in Tanach as intentional deviations for the greater good. A couple simple examples would be the teaching that Chavah ate from the tree in order to create a situation where a deeper tikkun could be achieved, or Tzelofchad who performed a kiddush HaShem by violating the shabbath and accepting death as the appropriate punishment. Moshe's sin can similarly be explained away. As are most of the sins of the Avoth. Even David HaMelech is said (i'm pretty sure in the Talmud but I don't think I've ever learned it inside) to have never sinned. The catch is always how we take teshuvah into account--something that is, I think, even a little vague in the Tanya, or at least in my understanding of it.

Not to mention there is the general directive in the Talmud that if we see a Tzaddik sin, we must assume he did teshuvah that night.

B'kitzur to my limited understanding, there's a traddition to respect teshuvah to the point at which someone who did (proper and complete) teshuvah has never sinned. at all. If we then take into account that anything we might see as a sin or and error, could either have been done intentionally or repaired through teshuvah, there could have been many who never sinned or made mistakes.

There's the added issue that the Rebbe was (according to my Rav) the Nasi haDor in which case, he is in some senses viewed as the klal, and since lo bashamayim hi, then in a sense, if he said it, it by definition is true..

[Not that these are official Chabad party lines, like you I learn Chabad Chassidut in addition to other mekoroth, but unlike you I don't think I ever got to meet the Rebbe, unless it was when I was a child; anyways this is simply ways I would try to understand how the party lines might play out in a way others could at least understand if not agree with.]

I've never heard of the Chabad Ibbur thing, but I can't see how it could be more extreme than the little I do know.

The Atzmus question doesn't seem like it's impossible, but yes it does need to be explained.. most importantly did anyone else ever embody this quality?

And the Tzaddik Gamur concept just seems like it needs to be clarified by tying it to other known terminology. In general Chabad often re-interprets/re-appropriates existing words in a way that is very reminiscent of l'havdil cults.. in this case I think they are performing some deep tikkun on this kind of cult-word-reclaimation but still it's unsettling sometimes. (simplest case in point: claiming that Tanya means "revellation" or "it was revealed" it's not that it can't mean that, it's just that that's not the usual most obvious translation..it's a stretch.)

[Chabakuk Elisha]

This is a very long and complicated issue (and a tiring one), but I'll try to help. To start, I must say that I reject the notion of a Jewish infallibility doctrine (I am a Lubavitcher).

Here's the deal though - We need to:
1. Define Mistake
2. Define Emunas Chachomim
3. Define Rebbe

1. Everyone in Yiddishkeit, migadol ve'ad koton, made & makes 'mistakes.' In a few places, the Gemora tells us about many (and basically wants us to apply this to pretty much all) great tzaddikim, "lo chota ela toeh" (they did not sin, rather, the erred). So, here's the deal: Sin, no - Mistake, yes.

2. That said, their mistakes are not like the mistakes of a common man who battles his Yetzer Hora - they have none - therefore their mistakes are not due to ego, or an evil urge, or the like. Thus, they still remain tzaddikim, and in this way they differ greatly from us.

3. A Rebbe/Tzaddik is the complete, ideal, man – we look at him as a toe looks at the mind. We attempt to emulate him and his values, he is head & shoulders above the entire nation – we can only imagine the level he is on. He is our heart and soul, and he knows far better than we, what needs to be done for us to fulfill our purpose, and how we can be closer to HKB"H - which is the point of the entire thing altogether. So, while he remains human, and as such is fallible, this is not to say that he is like any manager/worker relationship. We understand that we have only the Tzaddikim to turn to for guidance, and Klas Yisroel maintains emunas chachomim in the Tzadikim, even though they are human, as we have always done since biblical times.