R. Erlanger is also known as the author of the very-popular (among chasidim, teen-aged ones in particular), anonymously-published booklets named "חסידות". As such, he can be considered as an unofficial representative of mainstream Chassidic thought (l'afikai Chabad-style Chassidus).
I found a written copy of a speech he gave about Emunah. I picked it up and I was surprised by the content. I mean, I always knew that some people have these kind of worldview, but I never thought that such a famous Mashpia as R. Erlanger, disseminates such views. There actually is some truth to what he says, but the way he says it . . . Well, see for yourself. Here's one page, I highlighted the sentences I found bothersome.
This concept is brought down by Rav Baruch Kossover in the name of Rav Saadya Gaon in the Hakdomo of the Yesod HoEmunah V'Amud Hoavodo. It isn't anything new.
ReplyDeleteI never knew this was mainstream Chassidus today. I always thought you have to be breslav to say such things.
ReplyDeletek'mo tipish. Excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe first sentence alone wouldn't have bothered me. Belief is not something in the realm of the שכל. The שכל is agnostic; belief is a leap of faith. He could have been saying that in a roundabout way. But the second sentence killed it for me. הבנה is a contradiction to אמונה? That is Jewish belief?
ReplyDeleteThe staunch Litvak in me says קורא אני עליו טָפַשׁ כַּחֵלֶב לִבָּם אֲנִי תּוֹרָתְךָ שִׁעֲשָׁעְתִּי.
Rav Saadiah Gaon believes the exact opposite of this.
ReplyDeleteSee Tanya Ch. 18 שהאמונה היא למעלה מן הדעת וההשג' כי פתי יאמין לכל דבר וערום יבין וגו' ולגבי הקב"ה שהוא למעלה מן השכל והדעת ולית מחשבה תפיסא ביה כלל הכל כפתיים אצלו ית' כדכתיב ואני בער ולא אדע בהמות הייתי עמך ואני תמיד עמך וגו' כלומר שבזה שאני בער ובהמות אני תמיד עמך
ReplyDeletesounds pretty similar to the quote you find so bothersome. One of the paradoxes of Chabad; to believe like a simpleton and to have a sophisticated understanding at the same time.
did anyone ever see what R. Erlanger qoutes "שטות דקדושה" actullay brought in any "ספרים הקדושים"? If yes, please cite the source.
ReplyDeleteit is a standard chabd term.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 3:18:
ReplyDelete'Tanya' would be a source, "a standard chabd term" doesn't really cut it. Nor would a sicha or a maamar (of anyone) be considered of traditional "seforim kedoshim".
I'm not familiar with R' Erlanger, but wouldn't seforim hak'doshim be a good coverup for a Chabad term? By chassidim seforim hakdoshim has a much broader meaning than you are giving it. In chabad the earliest use of this precise term I could find is from the Tzemach Tzedek, I think every one would consider him acceptable.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 9:56:
ReplyDelete"seforim hakdoshim has a much broader meaning than you are giving it" - and what meaning am I giving? All I excluded were sichos and maamarim, if that narrows it down that ain't my problem. However if you mean to say that R' Erlanger mentioning "seforim hakdoshim" doesn't neccesarily refer to seforim at all then I rest my case.
Yes, the Tzemach Tzedek is deffinitely acceptable. But please point me to the precise place (like I noted earlier, a name alone doesn't really have much weight). Notice how noone else either posted a source.
Where are sichos and ma'amarim published? almost all chassidishe seforim are collections of talkes. As for the tzemach tzedek see here http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15978&st=&pgnum=205 or hatorah devorim vol 6 although one would have to be very erudite to find this source. I would think the he probably read the ma'mar bosi legani (published in many seforim) which uses this term, and liked it enough to use it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 10:54:
ReplyDelete"almost all chassidishe seforim are collections of talkes" .... This is not at all true. The list is too long to jot down but if you look at any classic sifrei chassidus you'll see they are not at all mere sichos (Degel Machne Efrayim, Toldos Yaakov Yosef, Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi - just to name a few to get my drift as to what is REALLY considered sifrei chassidus).
The link you posted ('Ohr ha'Torah' of the Tzemach Tzedek printed by Kehas) is 1) with all due respect to the TT not accredited as being counted amonfst standard sifrei chassidus (espicially since this set was never printed till Kehas came along so yad kol adam was NEVER memashmesh bam), and 2) in any event, the context it is used in Ohr ha'Torah has nothing to do with the meaning R' Erlanger is qouting from "sefroim hakedoshim". If anything, the TT is saying something along the lines disscused in Likutei Moharan (2:24).
Basically, a single quasi-source shouldn't be qouted as "b'seforim ha'kedoshim". Unfortunately many hide behind this term when lacking a concrete source or two [or three]. I'm not saying this is what R' Erlanger did too, lilmod ani tzarich and am curious if there is such a saying in "seforim hakedoshim".
"one would have to be very erudite to find this source" ... exactly! Because this is not standard as I just finished saying.
I'm agreeing with you that in Chabad Shtus Dikdusha means transcending intellect and not ignorance is bliss (although the tanya would seem to imply otherwise v'akmal). but AFAIK it is the only place (based on a Google search and a hebrewbooks search) that you will find this term. I still think that he is taking the classic idea of emuna and applying this term in his own way. Seforim Hak'doshim in general is a cover up for when you don't know/can't quote the source, a Rebbe saying something qualifies IMHO in the chassidishe world as Seforim Hakdoshim.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 6:07:
ReplyDeleteha'yotzei mi'divreinu: You agree that the shprach R' Erlanger used of "shtus d'kdusha" isn't found (at least by the two of us it wasn't, and perhaps neither by anyone here who acknowledged my request for a source) in ANY [classic] seforim, nor in any sifrei chassidus and nor in any other areas. And frankly, nor was it found in what he qouted as "sforim hakdoshim".
"a Rebbe saying something qualifies IMHO in the chassidishe world as Seforim Hakdoshim"
care to clarify? If you're saying the TT would qualify as "sforim hakdoshim" in this case, we already established that it wouldn't; 1) it has nothing to do with what R' E is talking about and 2) Ohr HaTorah is by no standards a classic sefer - with a possible exception in Chabad circles, and yet possibly only for the past 20yrs. or from whenever they printed it.
or are you now just talking about 'klalei lishonos Chassidius'?
I'm agreeing with you last option klalei lishonos Chassidius. He took a Chabad expression, blamed it on seforim hakdoshim, and reinterpreted it to fit his world view. The irony is that Chabad while agreeing that one has to believe as a shoteh, but it requires that emunah come down into sechel, which R' erlanger has trouble accepting. In Chabad this expression btw does not relate to emunah (as you mentioned) but to dealing with the world. the clearest expression of it are the shluchim who live shtus dikdusha on a daily basis v'akmal.
ReplyDeleteto be m'lamed zechus I would offer that there are similar sentiments which have been applied by intellectuals to the study of science.
ReplyDelete"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every conceived notion, follow humbly wherever and whatever abysses nature leads, or you will learn nothing." Thomas Huxley