Rabbis Refuse To Answer Police Summons In Case Of Chabad Rabbi's Racist Book

Rabbi Yaacov Yosef, son of Ovadia Yosef, and Rabbi Dov Lior were summoned to be questioned by the police after expressing their support for the book "Torat Hamelech" but refused to comply with the summons. The book says it is permissible to murder Arab babies because they will grow up to hate Jews.

Rabbis refuse to be questioned in 'Torat Hamelech' case
Aviel Magnezi • Ynet

Rabbi Yaacov Yosef, son of Ovadia Yosef, and Rabbi Dov Lior were summoned to be questioned by the police after expressing their support for the book "Torat Hamelech" but refused to comply with the summons. Lior failed to appear to the meeting scheduled for Monday while Yosef announced he would not appear for the meeting scheduled for Tuesday.

About a fortnight ago the book's author Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira was questioned on suspicion of incitement. The book deals with halachic injunctions on the issue of killing non-Jews, among other subjects. The book suggests that it is permissible to kill non-Jews if they break one of the seven mitzvoth, as long as this is done out of concern for keeping the mitzvoth.

Rabbi Yaakov Yosef is very close to Chabad, and is sometimes represented as a Chabadnik. Rabbi Dov Lior comes from a Chabad family. Rabbi Yizchak Shapira is a Chabadnik. So is his mentor, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, who was also arrest in connection with the book which, among other things, allows the murder of Arab babies because they will grow up to be our enemies.

All of these rabbis are familiar with and have taught the Tanya, the fundamental book of Chabad hasidut authored by Chabad's founder, Rabbi Schneer Zalman of Lyadi. The Tanya says that non-Jews have evil souls that have within them no good at all.

Related Posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11.

Related Posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11.

Comments

[Shemtov]

Finally someone speaks out loud about the TANYA thing... It is right in the first chapter, no need to go deep in the pages. And it is to be learnt on a daily basis.

[the usual chaim]

someone told me that in yehidut the rebbe told them personally that "umot ovdei gilulim" (the actual hebrew locution) refers specifically to idolators (and it is self-understood that habad communities like all ashkenazic communities follow the halakhic tradition that does not regard christians as idolators - if not, then it would literally be impossible to conduct business in the west as it is forbidden to do business with idolators three days before and three days following their holidays ... eg. sunday) and not to non-jews generally. I.e. the english translation (which reads "nations of the world")is a mistranslation.

clearly this is not how it is understood by the majority of habadniks, but it is worth knowing. this is not to say that the doctrine is not still problematic. it is, however, to say that the scope of its problem is (or, at least for the rebbe, should be) much smaller than is generally believed.

[harold]

were summoned to be questioned by the police after expressing their support for the book "Torat Hamelech"

Wow, Israel is one tough country! Couldn't do that here in the States thats for sure.

[Menachem Mendel lll]

Is this how we as Jews show respect for the laws of this land and the police?

The police are there to protect every law abiding citizen from racists who wish to harm other people, criminals, murderers, men who fornicate children en masse etc.

For my fellow Jews to show contempt, disrespect and indifference towards the people who risk their lives on a dialy protect us is an insult to all law abiding regardless of race, creed or religion.

This "Rabbi" better stop massaging his blue baytzim while shockeling his hard dick during Shmoneh Esray and turn his crusted over ass to the Poh-lice forthwith.

[rabbidw]

come off it. Not answering a summons is not mass murder. In this case, it is a reaction to Police overeaching. I do not know procedure in Israel, but in America the summons would be quashed. Endorsing a book of Jewish Law comes under freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Rabbis are acting in the best traditions of Thoreau. The Police are acting in the worst gtraditions of Joe Stalin.

[chicago sam]

I personally think of the Chabad as Hassidic Leninists who will do ANYTHING to achieve their goal--regardless whether it requires stealing, poaching other member's congregants, offering "free" services to lure people away from other Shuls; they disregard all the laws of Hasagat Gevul, but they complain when Aish or the Kabbalah Institute encroaches on THEIR turf.

Chabad does not believe they are beholden to observe dina demalchuta dina (as seen in the rally to ensure that Chabad felons do not serve any prison time for the scams they perpetrate against their own chevara).
Frankly speaking, I think to a certain extent they behave like Hassidic anarchists as well. Go figure. Their Messianic nonsense appeals to only the dimwitted and demented.

Chabad does not believe they are beholden to observe dina demalchuta dina (as seen in the ralley to ensure that Chabad felons do not serve any prison time for the scams they perpetrate against their own chevara).

Frankly speaking, I think to a certain extent they behave like Hassidic anarchists as well. Go figure. Their Messianic nonsense appeals to only the dimwitted and demented.

[A E ANDERSON]

So many issues here...

THE TANYA AND THE REBBE: Whatever the marginal note in Tanya says, it is clear that MM Schneerson, at least toward the end of his life, adopted a universalist approach that promises inclusion and salvation for all humankind. Toward this end, Schneerson promoted the quasi-Judaism of the so-called Noachides, pretty much a religion of his own creation. He made its promotion one of his famed "mitzvah campaigns." Set as a second fiddle to Judaism, it's no surprise that Noachidism was never ready for prime time. Who, after all, wants to be the drawer of water and hewer of wood for the Jews? If you take Judaism as the true faith, then conversion seems the likely goal for a non-Jewish believer.

CRITICS MISUNDERSTAND TANYA: The classic texts of Chabad hasidism were traditionally introduced in the latter years of a yeshiva education. In the earliest years, students of Hasidus were significantly learned in Talmud, commentaries, medrashim, and the common works of the Kabbalah, especially those of the Lurianic School. In later years, when Hasidus was incorporated into the formal curriculum of the Tomchei Tmimim yeshivas, there was and remains to this day a careful, sequential introduction to the mystical texts. Part of that introduction are the chapters "Mitzvot Tsistsis and Haamanat Elohut" from the Tsemach Tsedeq's Derekh Mitzvothekha. In those texts, new learners are presented with some of the theological and philosophical issues attendant on trying to study God and creation, and the use of mystical language to do so. The text sets forth the tension between man's limited tools of understanding against the backdrop of an infinite, unfailing, all-knowing God.
Habad, following Luria (it becomes impossible to separate them at times), accepts that no human thought can comprehend God. Yet, there is a language, the Kabbalah (let us not quibble over its origin) that man created/was given to understand God in a limited way. According to this cosmology, God "retracted" himself, seemingly creating a space where less perfect existence could be. God interfaces with this world by channeling his life forces, whatever that may be (hasidus uses the "light" metaphor), concealing it, molding it, blending it, in a way that the corporeal world can exist (be constantly recreated) within and despite the infinite existence of God. But God never really limits himself: He creates the illusion of an empty space from the perspective of the light's recipient. This is a theological necessity, moreover, in order than man should have free choice, for a man overwhelmed by the infinite light of God would not be able to choose evil.
This Scholastic balancing act preserves God's infinity, and offers a way to explain how the less perfect -- man -- and even evil can (temporarily) co-exist. Thus, evil is really a concealment of the infinite light of God. There remains, according to Habad, nothing ultimately outside of God. Thus, even a non-Jew is part of God as much as anything else in the universe, even though he does not possess, according to the Lurianic account, a "Godly soul" that is "actually a part of God above." It is with a lesser degree of revelation, and a greater degree of concealment, that the non-Jew's soul is connected to God.
Habad's instructional texts, such as Derekh Motzvotheka, are careful to convey to the reader that these descriptions are never to be taken literally, and must be relegated, like the aggadic constructs "hand of God" or "nose of God," to a figurative understanding.
Therefore, it is wrong to take esoteric concepts in Kabbalah to simplify, quote and apply them out of their context. Habad mysticism borders on the pantheistic (technically, panentheistic): the world is pretty much an illusion and all is God (in differing states of revelation). Non-Jews are part of God. The table leg is part of God. We could go on, adding the traditional qualifying "kaveyachol" ("as if it were"), to prevent us from enunciating what would otherwise be gross theological error.
We ran into the same problem, in another context, when certain critics of Habad took a quote from MM Schneerson about his father in law, "Der Rebbe is 'Atsmus," and "Der Rebbe is atsmus [eyn sof] ongetun en a goof." That does not mean the Rebbe is Jesus, or God (ח"ו) incarnate. It means that the divine is in a greater state of revelation ('atsmus, to denote a uniquely high level) in a Rebbe than in an ordinary person. We would have no theological problem saying the same about a prophet out of Tanakh. But when said with respect to a controversial group, it's a sexy quote that makes them sound like cyrpto-Christians and therefore outside the Jewish pale. Ditto for the "souls of idol worshippers" quote from Tanya.

GINSBURGH, ET AL, ERR: In their own way, they take esoteric mystical, medrashic, aggadic, historical concepts and try to make then into tangible matters of Jewish religious practice. The proof of their errors rests in the grotesque conclusions that they draw, conclusions so offensive to the moral mind (killing babies) that one cannot give them quarter: they are the Jewish equivalents of Holocaust deniers. We silence Holocaust deniers not because there is no room for scholarship and discussion about the Shoah. We silence them because the (usually wrong) conclusions of their scholarship promote hate and racial violence, which is their initial goal.
They might argue that the Torah says such and such. The problem is that Torah requires a tradition, a kabbalah from one generation to the next. It is not enough to find something in a text and say "let's do it." Judaism requires a tradition. We do not have a tradition that says we kill babies. In ancient times, it was the practice to utterly annihilate one's enemies. Parts of the Old Testament are quite bloody. But one would be a madman to say that IDF should play Samson and drink libations out of the skulls of vanquished enemies, and so on.
These haredim are obviously trying to reconcile their Settler ethos with classical Judaism and they are reaching into the archives of Jewish history for models and traditions that they can adopt. The model they are working with is, for lack of a better label, is the Future-Perfect Jewish Commonwealth, a theoretical construct that never was (and hopefully never will be) made from the masqonot of post-exilic Jewish texts, layered over by the great Rishonim, and Acharonim when available. This is the Halakhic Eretz Israel that these religious scholars imagine is the world to come.
Menachem Schneerson, while he raised messianic expectations and demanded that matters of "redemption" be studied, did set a limit on the extent of human agency in bringing about the messianic era: he stated that the Third Temple would descend whole from the heavens, and that our homes and synagogues would be transported through the clouds to Eretz Israel after the Messiah arrives. His teachings were to bring the Messiah through ordinary Torah and mitzvot, always stopping short of the kind of blatant Temple Mount-style activism that is popular in certain Settler circles. Bring Moshiach; God will do the rest.
I think Ginsburgh and Shapira exploit a certain disconnect in scholarly Orthodox circles: nobody today considers themselves of sufficient rabbinic stature to overrule or otherwise negate the sayings, principles and findings of the greats of antiquity. So as they postulate their new halakha for the Future-Perfect Jewish Commonwealth, they draw on perfectly valid but seriously dated sources. I don't really know if they publish these things with an eye toward rabble rousing, but they are well-read, aware men who should bear responsibility for what they teach and preach, no matter who the source. For them, "the Rambam says" is no more exculpatory than "we were just following orders."

[Shmarya]

WTF are you smoking?

Chabad kids learn Tanya – including its anti-gentile parts – from well before Bar Mitzvah age.

Past that, the Rebbe's so-called universalism was meant to make non-Jews subservient to Jews.

He was a staunch right wing ideologue close in his view to Kahane.

You can ramble on ad infinitum as much as you want, but that does not change the truth.

[David]

It just applies to idolators? So only Hindus and Buddhists are evil, not Christians? Is that supplosed to make it OK?

[Eliezer]

well since only Jews have a 'godly soul' nobody else matters, right?

WRONG!!!!

But read your Tanya .... you'll see.

[chicago sam]

The concept of the "Jewish soul" did not originate with RSZ, but has antecedents in other earlier Kabbalist writings.

I am quite familiar with all the sources Anderson mentions, but really, I think he may be overlooking several important points:

(1) Schnersohn invented Noahidism because of his hatred of Christianity. I wonder whether he hoped the Christians would add to his Messianic luster.

(2) The Mitzvah of Tzitzit and Ha'amanat Elohut of the first MMS refer specifically to anthropomorphism, Schnersohn II always went to great lengths to stress that the Godly soul of a Jew is MAMASH from God (as if to say this aspect does not apply to non-Jewish souls, which derive from kelipah).

(3) Chabad and other Hassidic sources believe that God is incarnated in the Tsadik. Christian theologians would also say that Jesus "reveals" God and is merely a metaphor for the Divine in human form. Frankly, Chabad's apologetics is (yawn) not terribly original.

* * *
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=7970
The above quote is referenced in a footnote in the biography of the Alter Rebbe
========

Needless to say, this passage is a distortion for many reasons.

==================

The legacy of Schnersohn is riddled with problems stemming from his support of his YYS during WWII, who would rather wait for Moshiach to come and save the day. For this reason, he opposed supporting R. Eliezer Silver and Aaron Kotler, and others, who took a more realistic stand in confronting Roosevelt.

WE WANT MOSHIACH NOW (Oy, I still remember hearing the corny song, and how MMS feverishly invoked his psak din to force God to release His Moshiach) must rank with one of the most stupid and childish undertakings any Jewish leader has ever conceived.

MMS's disdain of Ethiopian Jews, and his meshugana insistence that conversion be in accordance with Halacha in Israel helped contribute to the insanity we see in Israel today. After all, they do not have a "Godly soul" like white Jews. Pretty sick, no?

The antics of the "Rebbe's army" functions and promotes Borg-like consciousness among the drones, who are his mindless Hasidim, who will do anything, say anything, promise anything, to get ahead.