Idolatry In The Name Of Outreach?

Okay. It's cute. But is it kosher? Is a doll, a three dimensional human likeness of a known person, similar to an idol? Does Jewish law allow this? Would the Rebbe have allowed this?

Here is the human model for the above doll, Chabad of San Francisco's Rabbi Joseph Langer:

Maybe it's like the idea that if one is kind to those he should be cruel to, he will later be cruel to those he should be kind to.

Chabad bans any doll whose image is based on a non-kosher animal for fear these 'treife' dolls will negatively effect the souls of Jewish children. This insanity is based on a faulty reading of a Zohar, I think, which is anyway itself a forgery. So Chabad is very careful to ban tiger dolls and Lion King dolls while at the same time it allows and glorifies something that most normative halakhic thought would view as biblically forbidden.

Comments

[Y. Ben Qor'ha]

Maybe it's like the idea that if one is kind to those he should be cruel to, he will later be cruel to those he should be kind to.
Of course, but with these minim, expect the rule of "reverse rules": nahafokh hu,
if you read a you should do b.
Al tiqrei a qrei b.
An adequate corollary would be, "that who prohibits the permitted, ends up allowing the prohibited" as is the case with this doll. I bet a source of parnassa to the holy China Shluchim.
Can one get them with kids meals at MacDonalds?

[Bob]

What's the symbol on his hat?

[mb]

What's the symbol on his hat?

Posted by: Bob | August 12, 2007 at 08:07 AM

San Francisco Giants

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Chabad bans any doll whose image is based on a non-kosher animal for fear these 'treife' dolls will negatively effect the souls of Jewish children.

I'm starting to notice this ban among some chareidim too.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Can I buy a Shmarya bobblehead doll? (LOL)

[Shmarya]

Alevai!

[some]

Its okay if the doll is not going to be treated with kovod like a barbie.

[Elizabeth]

"Chabad bans any doll whose image is based on a non-kosher animal for fear these 'treife' dolls will negatively effect the souls of Jewish children."

What are you talking about? No one has ever come into my house and gone through our toy box looking for stuffed animals that weren't kosher. It's true that I try to only purchase kosher animals. Yeah, so what? That's my choice. I was NEVER told to do that. I've seen plenty of dogs and cats and bears and lions at other Lubavitcher households. No one is "banning" certain dolls. Hey, I know Lubavitchers who have Barbies, too. It's a personal choice.

[Bain Hazmanim Adventurer]

Everyone,

See Shmarya get his a** kicked in a debate right on his own blog!!!

Look at last week's post about "Why Hareidim have so many kids.:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/why-do-haredim-.html#comments

Hurry, Bain Hazmanim is almost over. The fun can't last forever!

[Yos]

I'm trying to think of something cynical to say, but the little girl in that picture is so cute my annoyance is being dulled.

What passage from the Zohar relates to non-kosher dolls?

[Dr Fred]

Langer is a clapped out hippie biker from the days of Haight Ashbury. One incident sticks in my mind ( reported in the S F Jewish Bulletin years ago), Seems the L. rebbe called him and predicted a S F earthquake. Langer took off and stayed in a motel out of the "danger zone" ( the quake didn't happen) and bragged to the Bulletin that he racked up a thousand + in phone calls. Of course, he didn't consider that his "flock" ( flocks exist to be fleeced, do they not?) might need him if the quake did happen.Where do they get these people?

[Aharon Varady]

The Zohar is more fairly described as pseudepigrapha, a work attributed to a historic or even legendary personage, and written in a style familiar to that ancient period. There is a long tradition of this practice within medieval Judaism. Take for example Sefer Chanoch, the Sefer Yashar, or the Sefer Yetzirah -- all works whose authors attributed their teaching to ancient figures. To dismiss the Zohar as a forgery, a work written to intentionally deceive its audience is a mischaracterization of Moshe de Leon's work. De Leon was not the first, nor the last Jew who attributed his opus to historically famous, even legendary figures. In a similar way, Rabbi Akiva attributed the teaching of placing crowns on the letters in Hebrew calligraphy to Moshe.

The Zohar is an incredible, fantastic work, the ideas and images of which should rightfully be considered part of the legacy of our cultural imagination. The pre-eminent Jewish floklorist, Raphael Patai explained that reference to the Zohar as a relic of irrational medieval superstition, was common among the scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentumsin the 19th and early 20th century. The "questionable" authorship of the Zohar and the goal of improving the status of Judaism as a rational, enlightened religion, lent itself to dismissive attacks on the Zohar as a mere forgery, of no further interest. Patai goes on to explain how even Gershom Scholem was not immune to this attitude either.

But for religious Jews, is the revelation of a work as pseudepigrapha much better than declaring it a forgery?
As the entry in wikipedia on pseudepigrepha well notes, "the question of whether a text is pseudepigraphical or not elicits sensations of loyalty and can become a matter of heavy dispute. The authenticity or value of the work itself, which is a separate question for experienced readers, often becomes sentimentally entangled in the association."

Setting aside the humility (true or false) of hard working scholars averse to taking credit for their own ideas, the strategy of attributing authorship to a revered authority is essentially to lend credence to a text -- where otherwise it may be ignored or rejected. This motive is especially plausible in Judaism where there has long been ambivalence towards "creating something new," receiving the tradition from Moses at Sinai, and passing it to the next generation unchanged. For the Zohar, which teaches: "There is nothing new under the Sun... but there is under the Moon," it

Yes, Judaism values proper attribution. Following Pirkei Avot, chapter 6, paragraph 6: "…what he has heard from others he will quote in the name of him of whom he has heard it. For so you have learned: He who quotes something in the name of the person who said it brings deliverance to the world. For it is said: "And Esther said to the King in the name of Mordechai."

However, the pernicious myth is that we receive the tradition from our teachers unaltered. The tragedy is that we do not value the tradition as Alive, as constantly be worked through the mill of our imaginations, inspiring new works, new stories, new teachings. But this is of course, the value of an oral tradition (it can't help but to remain alive, to evolve) and the danger of a written tradition (subject to uncritical codification as unyiedling dogma). Thus our ancestors recognized the significance of maintianing the oral tradition as oral and forbidding it to be written.

The consequence of this is that rather than appreciate a work on the basis of its contents, religious Jews grant credibility to texts on the basis of their presumed authorship. Certainly, this is not untypical of other source text-centric religions as well. Ultimately, all religious source texts are creative works whose ideas and imagery will either resonate or fail to communicate with their readers. I would argue that the value of a work, especially a religious one must be determined with one's eyes blind as to its origins, its provenance and authorship. I have made the same argument concerning religions that validate their stories on the basis of historicity. The relevance, value, and validity of a teaching comes not from its author and not from history, but from itself. The ability to determine this value is called critical thinking, and is the greatest gift any tradition can impart to the willfully creative and expressive intellects it would have receive it.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Aharon: Nicely said. I have no problem with seeing the Zohar as a work of the Jewish imagination, and worthy of respect in that regard. What I don't like is its being looked upon as the infaillible word of God. Therefore, all that pernicious "anti-goy" stuff in it becomes enshrined as dogma, for example.

In another thread, Shmarya said of Judaism:
"...there is nothing trulu compelling about Judaism in the modern world. Its historical basis, if taken literally, is false. Its legal "innovations" are mostly borrowed from surrounding cultures. Its moral teachings seem much less special when compared to what surrounding cultures actually taught – as opposed to the anti-polytheist PR found in Jewish sources."
(Sunday School causes Intermarriage).

I respect Shmarya and his p.o.v., but I am curious as to your reaction to that post. My interest in posting here so frequently is to answer questions that I have about my religion, not to trash it. I think you can help.

(BTW, even though Shmarya gets grouchy, I think he too is not merely interested in trashing it- not that I can speak for another).

[PishPosh]

KabbalahOnline has a 5 part article on the Authenticiy of the Zohar with footnotes when citing texts. Its an interesting contrast to the usual dismissal of the Zohar as medeival the author takes up the issues of time, language, geography etc. Quite fascinating actually.

[Moshe from the City]

The fact that a Lubavitch child can't have a teddy bear (cause bears aren't Kosher) due to the Rebbe's statments shows how crazy Chabad really is. My Chabad friends tell me that some time ago the Rebbe said they shouldn't have dogs and cats, and a lot of Chabadniks got rid of their pets causing quite a bit of emotional distress to their many kids that loved old Rover. I learn now at a Misnagishe shul, and I'll tell you; the difference in knowledge between a regular old OU Rabbi and a Chabadnik is night and day. I wouldn't follow Chabad's opinions on anything.

Shavuah Tov everyone.

[Ariel Sokolovsky]

B"H
Dear Shmaryah!
1) You must be joking as far as the supposed idol worship involved in child having such a doll. I am aware some chareidim have a custom not to have dolls that have full human shape and demage one of its body parts before giving it to a child. In any case it's a chumrah based on a very far-fetched posibility that someone may worship such doll.
It is probably similar to the chumra some have not to allow your photograph to be taken etc.
As everyone knows you are not a fan of chumras if any kind of leniency can be found. So the readers must assume that you only brought it up to bash Chabad. Since some of the readers have joined in on this spectacle
it becomes important to notify all the villages missing an idiot before there is even greater damage done to the global ecosystem by all of them drawn here as if by a strong magnet.:-)

2) You told me you have a huge library at home. I am sure you have a copy of Chabad edition Tehilim in it ("Ohel Yosef Yitzhok") which has the Rebbe's letters and quotes from Sichos on various subjects printed at the end one of the quotes is about "purity of visual education" and it gives various reasons based on a number of midrashic and halachik sources (to make sure child doesn't see treife animals when he is taken to cheder , a custom for for a woman coming out of the mikvah to return and reemerse if she sees treife animal etc.) to avoid having treife animal shaped toys and pictures in childrens books and the Rebbe specifically excludes the situations when the animals are pictured to help understand the subject discussed in the book .
It has no Zoharic sources in it and the Rebbe takes pains to make sure it is very clear this is a suggestion not an outright ban here is the text in English translation see for yourself http://www.sichosinenglish.org/essays/15.htm

[Ariel Sokolovsky]

B"H
The link didn't come out right here it is again:
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/essays/15.htm

[J]

Since some of the readers have joined in on this spectacle
it becomes important to notify all the villages missing an idiot before there is even greater damage done to the global ecosystem by all of them drawn here as if by a strong magnet.:-)

Ariel,
I assume you are including yourself in this category since you are also here?

[me]

"What are you talking about? No one has ever come into my house and gone through our toy box looking for stuffed animals that weren't kosher. It's true that I try to only purchase kosher animals. Yeah, so what? That's my choice. I was NEVER told to do that. I've seen plenty of dogs and cats and bears and lions at other Lubavitcher households. No one is "banning" certain dolls. Hey, I know Lubavitchers who have Barbies, too. It's a personal choice."

that's faulty logic, just because you haven't seen, or have seen, doesn't reflect on what's Lubavitch ture stance. indeed, most people don't know Lubavitches true stance, most people proclaim "I'm a true proud lubavitcher," but they have no clue what it means to be zLubavitch,

our resident idol-worshiping Sokolovsky, has cleared it up, what Lubavicthes TRUE stance is.

chabad has a problem with idolatry.. hilarious!

[me]

Ariel, sorry, but that does not seem at all like a mere "suggestion"

[me]

especialy with a name like a "Elizabeth"

feh, a goyishe nomen!

"The fact that a Lubavitch child can't have a teddy bear (cause bears aren't Kosher) due to the Rebbe's statments shows how crazy Chabad really is. My Chabad friends tell me that some time ago the Rebbe said they shouldn't have dogs and cats, and a lot of Chabadniks got rid of their pets causing quite a bit of emotional distress to their many kids that loved old Rover. I learn now at a Misnagishe shul, and I'll tell you; the difference in knowledge between a regular old OU Rabbi and a Chabadnik is night and day. I wouldn't follow Chabad's opinions on anything.

Shavuah Tov everyone."

"The fact that a Lubavitch child can't have a teddy bear (cause bears aren't Kosher) due to the Rebbe's statments shows how crazy Chabad really is. My Chabad friends tell me that some time ago the Rebbe said they shouldn't have dogs and cats, and a lot of Chabadniks got rid of their pets causing quite a bit of emotional distress to their many kids that loved old Rover. I learn now at a Misnagishe shul, and I'll tell you; the difference in knowledge between a regular old OU Rabbi and a Chabadnik is night and day. I wouldn't follow Chabad's opinions on anything.

Shavuah Tov everyone."

God bless!

[me]

I loved the rebbe, but i hate where chabad has gone...

[Ariel Sokolovsky]

B"H
"our resident idol-worshiping Sokolovsky, has cleared it up, what Lubavicthes TRUE stance is.

Posted by: me | August 12, 2007 at 11:42 PM
"

Why does creating a web site packed with theomorphisms and Torah sources showing the use of theomorphisms is found in Tanach and words of Chazal and teachings of Chassidus makes one an idol-worshipper anymore than publishing a siddur (or praying from it) packed anthropomorphisms makes one a believer in corporeality of G-d?

[Dave]

My program as a co-founder of Rational Traditional Judaism is to take out all the anthropomorphisms out of the siddur. They must be rooted out.
They're not needed and only could lead to idolatrous perceptions.

[Dave]

My program as a co-founder of Rational Traditional Judaism is to take out all the anthropomorphisms out of the siddur. They must be rooted out.
They're not needed and only could lead to idolatrous perceptions.

[Elizabeth]

To "me",
Did it ever occur to you that my name might really be Mushka or Nechama or Hindy? "me" doesn't sound particularly Jewish.

As for knowing or not knowing the true Lubavitch stance, I've been in the homes of every shliach in town and I know what I have seen. There might be guidelines to follow, but not everyone follows them exactly, in every aspect of living.

[David]

OK, but what's the thing on his hat?

[Yochanan Lavie]

"especialy with a name like a "Elizabeth"
feh, a goyishe nomen!"

Actually, it's a derivation of Elisheva (the ayin used to be gutteral, not silent, and bet and vet are interchangable). Look up any dictionary of "goyishe" names. Many more than you realize have Hebrew roots.

[schneur]

The insignia on the hat is a mistake it should be $$.

[Y. Ben Qor'ha]

elizabeth, u been there, seen that in all the shlichim houses?!
u saw plenty cats and dogs? in the shlichim homes?
maybe u fergot or didnot notice.
may be their little kosher lambs had dogs or cats hairdo; no?
they will not go to frisk your homes. they have better ways to subvert the rebelious parents.
that's thru the kids being programmed.
in any case, "you" shouldn't be bothered, because you avoid plush mice, bears, squirrels, dogs dinosaurs and cats.
Lucky that plush sheeps are still being manufactured.
Otherwise kids in shul can only play with siddurim, terrible what with scattering them on the floor and putting them in shape for shaimos. no?!
i don't know elizabeth. ask your chabad rabbi (or his equally programmed rebbitzen) directly what he believes should be done.
In our case, I know @ the kindergarden my twin attended, they were told that non kosher plush animals shouldn't be brought with the kids to kindergarden or shul. the rabbis kids had nothing of the sort. our community was not of the frumest in the country. yet they found it necessary to tell the parents.
of course, barnie the dinosaur was banned too. for other reasons. the rabbi there, wouldn't care much about the midrash on the "holy one blessed be he building worlds and destroying them" he was very clear about 576- as was year then, no tolerance for one extra day!
A committed jew, should be a happy and unquestioning certifiable ignorant in the best lubavitch tradition.

[Ariel Sokolovsky]

B"H

My program as a co-founder of Rational Traditional Judaism is to take out all the anthropomorphisms out of the siddur. They must be rooted out.
They're not needed and only could lead to idolatrous perceptions.

Posted by: Dave | August 13, 2007 at 06:09 AM

Your problem is that Siddur and anthropomorphisms in it are largely based on or even quoted from Tanach, Psalms in particular.
So you may end up cutting the branch on which you are sitting.
If you carefully read the Guide for the Perplexed which seemingly fights anthropomorphisms and theomorphisms you'd see that Rambam admits that theomorphisms and anthropomorphisms have a place in Judaism and without them there would be many people unable to relate to G-d.
He explains that there are two kinds of religious concepts "truth" and so called "necessary truth" (which is probably why he makes no attempt to actually change the text of the siddur getting rid of athropomorhisms and theomorphisms like you want to)...
It's just that he wanted to present Judaism at a level palatable to an intellectual of his time a non Jew and a Jew assimilated in that culture and way of thinking.

Yet while negation of anthropomorphism and theomorphisms may break some barriers between intellectuals of various factions and religions by explaining all anthropomorphisms and theomorphisms as metaphors needed as educational tools at some point in the past (as Rambam seemingly does in the Guide for the perplexed) the result would be chilling of love and fear of G-d and consequently practical observance of mitzvot among the masses of Jews .
As the Rambam warns in the introduction to the Guide that it is writen for 1 wise man out of 10,000 and will lead to ruin of many others.
PS. A prayer from a siddur devoid of anthropomorphisms based on the Guide would probably look like this : "Oh Creator of the Universe who is totaly beyond all attributes , character qualities , spatial and temporal descriptions found in the Tanach and the words of the early sages. We ask nothing from you for we aknowlege that mitzvot and sins , rewards and punishments are merely causes and effects . We thank you for separating us from the ignorant masses who take the words of the prophets and sages of old at face value with simple faith and thus lack true understanding of You.
etc.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Maybe so, Reb Ariel, but you are too anthropomorphic on your website, in my opinion. (To those who don't know what I mean, check out www.rebbegod.blogspot.com).

I know Yochanan, i was just trying to make a point.

[me]

"Why does creating a web site packed with theomorphisms and Torah sources showing the use of theomorphisms is found in Tanach and words of Chazal and teachings of Chassidus makes one an idol-worshipper anymore than publishing a siddur (or praying from it) packed anthropomorphisms makes one a believer in corporeality of G-d?"

i think shmarya, deleted my comment accidently, what i was saying is that:

no where, in the siddur does it say that the rebbe is G-d!, c"v r"l

[me]

"I know Yochanan, i was just trying to make a point."

that comment was by me

[me]

"To "me",
Did it ever occur to you that my name might really be Mushka or Nechama or Hindy? "me" doesn't sound particularly Jewish.

As for knowing or not knowing the true Lubavitch stance, I've been in the homes of every shliach in town and I know what I have seen. There might be guidelines to follow, but not everyone follows them exactly, in every aspect of living."

Elizabeth, forgive me I was just trying to make a point, there's a differents between lubavitch and a lubavitcher.

"I've been in the homes of every shliach in town and I know what I have seen. There might be guidelines to follow, but not everyone follows them exactly, in every aspect of living."

that still doesn't take away from what their stance is.

[Y. Ben Qor'ha]

"you (R'A.S.) are too anthropomorphic on your website, in my opinion."
says R' Y. Lavie. i agree wholeheartedly with this statement. though i find it more than a tad understated.
it's not a question of either us "kofreem" of "the guide" or ignorant masses.
simply for heaven's sake: "דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם"
we cannot take everything litterally.
lubavitch attitude to rambam is revoltingly ridiculous.
on one hand, they have rambam yomi studies, rambam yomi X 2 studies.
rambam is spokesman of "pi hagvura".
in self serving distortions, he is the main reference for "proof" that their late "rebbe" was the messiah r'l. on the other hand, they are critical, very critical of the guide.
to the point that they don't read it. nor do they allow to read it.

[Lev]

According to what we know and see now, the best Lubavitcher gechka should be the picture of the 8th Lubavitcher Rebbe Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin(DZNRGLV)-preferably the ones hanging in the cabinets of the directors of the SVR-FSB(former KGB) and of Procurator General, who harassed mainstream community for extremism in Kitzur Shulhan Oruch...

[schneur]

There certainly was a sicho from the rebbe against jewish homes having images of non-Kosher animals and only having depictions etc of kosher animals.
That being said when the rebbe started saying kaddish for his wife Rebbetzin Mushka in his private residence it was noted that on display in the drawing room was a glass menagerie of various animals and yes there were non kosher animals as well.
I guess a machlokes rishonim.

[Shmarya]

I guess a machlokes rishonim.

LOL!

[Ben Sorer Moreh]

Pirkei Avot says to be "Bold as a tiger, brave as a lion, swift as a deer and soar like an eagle" (to do the will of father in heaven).

Guess the new version is "deer only".
-BSM

[Yochanan Lavie]

Ben SM: When Yaakov gave his blessings on his deathbed, he compared Dan to a snake (favorably). I guess he really meant a glatt kosher hot dog.

[R]

yes, even on nappies u have to colour in the non kosher animals on them.
Defacing books for the sake of your child not seeing ch"v the mouse on it is another one.
For some other reason to have anything with a pig on it is the ultimate in evilness.
I dread to think what would have been if noah was lubavitch.

[R]

oh back to the picture. What is wrong with a doll?? The only problem i see is the stupid symbol on his lubby hat and the fact that he is obviously so vain. Instead of spending the charity he gets for real purposes he uses it to make an action figure of himself.
What accesories come with the doll? Is there a chitas and a picture of the rebbe?
Do u get to to buy new clothes to dress this doll? He should have the beard with that fake dolls hair so it would be fun to comb and add clips to.

[Yochanan Lavie]

He should have the beard with that fake dolls hair so it would be fun to comb and add clips to.

As long as it's not Indian hair.

[Lev]

Scheur or Yochanan, you right,guys, the insigna should be $$$.
But what kind of $$$?
Cost of Russian oil, natural gas, metalls stolen from the Russian People by the Supporters of Lazar--russkie shiksa-banging "oligarchks".
You know, guys, I am getting a little bit tired hearing the stories like this or that chareidi stolen 100,000 or something like that.
In the main Lubavitcher Temple in downtown Moscow, sanctified by Putin himself in 2001, there is a plague listing Roman Abramovich(married to and fornicating with blonde shiksas) as a main supporter.
He stole BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS from impoverished Russians, who are far less "likers" of Jews then American gentiles.
Day will come when the Russian Nationalist Government(like the one we and lubavitchers want to be in Israel) will erase this joint from their Capital to all eternity.
We still might cry "antisemitism" when local hareidim are busted but what will we cry when Legitimate Government of the Russian People will demand the stolen BILLIONS to be returned?
May be poster "Avrohom" will answer me.

[max evans]

Generally I disagree with chabad as much as shmarya, but in this case I must note that I have met rabbi Langer, and he's quite a crackpot (he offered to sell me a signed photo of himself and his motorcycle for $18), so i wouldn't use his actions as a representation of lubavich in general.

[Lev]

Max, there are many like him

[Sasha Canadian]

I goggled "kosher plush stuffed animals" since a friend told me that apparently Frum parents don't allow plush toys because they are not kosher.

Your page came up. I read all of the comments.

Other than asking
(1) "can I give a plush toy to a frum child?" and
(2) "how do I know the toy is kosher?",

My comment is: Life in once; life is short; pilpul is a waste of time.

If anyone can answer my two questions, I thank you in advance.

[Avi A]

very interesting

[nehama dina]

.

[cdg]

Since so many of you asked: the "thing" on his hat is a San Francisco Giants symbol. The picture was apparently taken at a baseball game. Chabad's basis for not allowing non-kosher animals (or dolls representing non-kosher animals) is not based on the Zohar, but rather on the Shulchan Aruch which states that one is not allowed to give a non-kosher animal to a child as a pet, lest he/she eat it. It can be argued that a child is unlikely to eat a dog or a cat (unlike a grasshopper or salamander) and eating a stuffed animal would not constitute a violation of kashrus, but what harm is there in a chumra? There are enough valid things to critize about Chabad. It's not necessary to dwell on trivia.

[R' David]

"I loved the rebbe, but i hate where chabad has gone..."

Chabad went precisely where the "rebbe" took them --- idolatry.