Reflections on the Enduring Relevance of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson’s Religious Thought
First posted at hasidology on chabad.org
[I haven't posted on this blog for several months, but have published several articles on hasidology. In future I will repost all articles published there on Chabad-Revisited too. Hopefully I will continue to publish shorter posts here too, as in times bygone.]
A couple of months ago (March 28-29, 2012), a small group of academic and rabbinic scholars, along with educators and activists, held a deliberative conference[1] at the University of Pennsylvania to discuss the educational philosophy of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson.[2] In his opening remarks, Rabbi Menachem Schimdt, director of the Chabad on Campus International Foundation, and one of the conference hosts, made the following observation: “Many many people, most people, as a matter of fact, know what the Lubavitcher Rebbe looked like. A lot of people know that Lubavitch has a built a lot of buildings, runs a lot of programs and does a lot of outreach. But in terms of the amazing intellectual riches of Chabad philosophy there remains a lot of work to be done...”
[I haven't posted on this blog for several months, but have published several articles on hasidology. In future I will repost all articles published there on Chabad-Revisited too. Hopefully I will continue to publish shorter posts here too, as in times bygone.]
A couple of months ago (March 28-29, 2012), a small group of academic and rabbinic scholars, along with educators and activists, held a deliberative conference[1] at the University of Pennsylvania to discuss the educational philosophy of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson.[2] In his opening remarks, Rabbi Menachem Schimdt, director of the Chabad on Campus International Foundation, and one of the conference hosts, made the following observation: “Many many people, most people, as a matter of fact, know what the Lubavitcher Rebbe looked like. A lot of people know that Lubavitch has a built a lot of buildings, runs a lot of programs and does a lot of outreach. But in terms of the amazing intellectual riches of Chabad philosophy there remains a lot of work to be done...”
That
statement is true across the board. Over the course of two centuries, seven
successive Chabad Rebbes were prolific exponents of complex mystical and
philosophical paradigms, tackling such issues as the purpose and nature of
existence, the relationship between G-d and Man, the nature of divinity, moral
authority, the problem of evil, and a host of other theological conundrums.
While several hundred volumes of original Chabad chasidic texts have been
published, and continue to be studied within the Chabad community, the enduring
relevance of Chabad’s vast intellectual contribution is only beginning to be noticed
and is little known in the wider world.[3]
This
statement is especially true in regard to the last Rebbe, who ascended to the
leadership following the passing of the his father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak
Shneersohn in 1950, and led the movement from his New York headquarters for
over forty years. During this era, many leaders of Jewish orthodoxy recognised
scientific, technological, social and philosophical progress as a threat to
traditional beliefs and the traditional way of life. Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson,
however, saw the potential challenges as opportunities for the advancement of
religion. He harnessed new technologies for the dissemination of religious
teachings, and as a religious thinker displayed a deep sensitivity to the
contemporary zeitgeist and to the changing paradigms of modern thought. For
Rabbi Schneerson, the new frontiers being broken did not place religion on the
defensive, but on the contrary, provided a unique opportunity for religious
development.[4]
Indeed, he may have been unique in utilizing deconstructionist strategies as a
medium for the affirmation, dissemination and assimilation of theological
axioms.
Traditionally,
intellectual history has been marked by the pursuit of objective truth, and the
development of various conceptual paradigms whose general purpose is to
objectively measure the relative “truth” or correctness of a statement or a
hypothesis. Postmodernist thought challenges both the notion that anything can
ever be determined objectively at all, and also the notion that objectivity is
superior to subjectivity. It is generally felt that such subversive radicalism
places the religious claim of objective truth at a great disadvantage. Rabbi
Schneerson, however, implicitly embraced the new conceptual avenues as a means
to uphold a religious paradigm that enshrines subjectivity and personal choice
as the ultimate measure of superiority.
One
of the key themes in Rabbi Schneerson’s thought is his radical rethinking of
the traditional Jewish concept of “free-choice” (bechirah chafshit).
Traditionally, the discussion revolves around the need to make a truly
objective choice, rather than one influenced by our subjective situation. In
Rabbi Schneerson’s discussions of the concept the paradigm is reversed;
ultimate free choice is truly subjective and free of objective influence. If
there is an objective reason to choose, he argues, then it is not a choice made
freely by the self.[5]
The
educational challenge of today can be summed up as follows: Emancipation,
scientific progress, cultural pluralism and the freedom of knowledge, all
contribute to an environment where the options are wide open. Opportunities are
no longer governed by purely objective circumstantial factors such as
geography, community, social standing and economics, and one is increasingly
free to truly choose one’s own path. How can one preserve traditional Jewish
life in such a climate?
Rabbi
Schneerson did not see this so much as a challenge as an opportunity: The
choice to live a Jewish life, must now be a true choice, and is therefore far
more valuable and potent than ever before.[6] By
the same token, the risk of choosing otherwise is also higher than ever, and
the immensity of these new challenges requires a response of corresponding
potency. Jewish education, therefore, means imbuing children with Jewish
knowledge and faith that permeates them subjectively. We must provide children
and adults alike with the opportunity to fully experience and internalize
Judaism,[7]
rather than imposing it upon them objectively.[8]
Over
two days of intense sessions at the University of Pennsylvania, various aspects
of Rabbi Schneerson’s educational theory were illuminated as facets of a
broader ontological perspective that relates not only to the purpose and
function of education but to the purpose and function of all existence. Indeed,
during one deliberative session Dr. Naftali Loewenthal went so far as to
comment that, “the Lubavitcher Rebbe turned education into the theme of human
existence.” Consistent with the master/pupil metaphor so often employed in
Chabad literature to describe the creator/creation relationship,[9] the
relationship between G-d and man is to be viewed as an educational one, Torah
law and lore being the medium for educational communication.[10]
Rabbi
Schneerson used a similarly deconstructionist strategy to elevate Torah law and
lore beyond objective criticism. Previously any religious debate turned on
arguments for or against the objective validity or value of religious precepts.
Such arguments took certain conceptual paradigms and moral values to be
axiomatic, and religion was to be measured by the objective standard of reason.
Here too, Rabbi Schneerson quite literally enshrined the subjective choice made
by the divine self, as the ultimate source of all things. The objective
standard of reason is itself beholden to that suprarational choice - the true
standard of divine will and inexplicable mandate - for its very existence. The
former (reason) must be measured by the latter (religious mandate) rather than
the other way round. Far from undermining religious tradition,
deconstructionist critical theory is employed to imbue Torah law and lore with a potency that transcends objective
criticism.[11]
While
Rabbi Schneerson re-articulated traditional theological positions in radical
new ways, he certainly did not abandon
the more classical paradigms of critical objectivity. Indeed, to declare all
things equally subjective, would be to lose any coherent measure of validity.
As Professor William Pinar remarked during one deliberative session, the
postmodernist critique of absolute objectivity risks being taken too far, “It
becomes an absolute point in itself; that anything is possible, that nothing
can be determined... there can be no master narrative, there is only uncertainty,
of that we can be certain.” Clearly, all things can be strung upon a
scale ranging from more subjective to more objective, and the one can only be
determined in respect to the other. Indeed, many axioms of chabad chasidic
thought hinge upon a cosmological paradigm which has its roots in the
cosmological argument for the existence of G-d articulated by the school of
philosophers established by Rabbi Saadia Gaon. Knowledge of G-d’s
existence and the validity of the Torah a medium for the communication of
divine will is therefore predicated upon objective reasoning. Justification
for religious law, however, is ultimately predicated upon divine choice and
will. Likewise, objective argument may provide a platform from which the
individual may take a subjective leap of faith, whose potency transcends
rational justification.
Returning
to the theme of education specifically, at the conference held at the
University of Pennsylvania many aspects of Chabad educational theory were
explored, including methodology, educational responsibility, the nature of the
teacher / student relationship, the purpose of education and so on. Rabbi
Shmuel Lew and Professor Barry Chazan collaborated to present a very insightful
comparative overview of an educational tract by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak
Schneersohn (the sixth Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch)[12] in
relation to the work of other, better known, educational theoreticians. Dr.
Naftali Loewenthel discussed the ten sephirot as a paradigm of educational
theory, and demonstrated aspects of its application within contemporary Chabad
educational institutions. Dr. Aryeh Solomon argued that Rabbi Menachem M.
Schneerson’s thought incorporates a complete philosophy of education, gave a
sweeping overview of its key themes, and led a group study and discussion of
illustrative passages culled from the his talks and writings. Professors Philip
Wexler and William Pinar discussed the need to rethink educational purpose and
methodology on a more global level, and the possibility of lifting innovative educational
paradigms from their chasidic context in order to apply them on a broader
scale. Additional papers were delivered by Professor Randall Collins, Professor
Jonathan Garb and Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe, and a deliberative session was led by
Rabbi Menachem Schmidt.
The
ideas expressed in the present article are my reflections on themes that
resurfaced time and again throughout the deliberations. As a group,
participants were struck by the radically progressive methodologies advocated
by Rabbi Schneerson in the cause of traditional Judaism, and intrigued by their
marked relevance to new theoretical paradigms, which the modern world is only
just beginning to confront. In the words of Professor Piner, a leader in the
field of Curriculum Studies, “It seems clear that he [Rabbi Schneerson]
transcended all the categories previously used to define the different aspects
of educational theory.”
[2] Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (1902-1994, often referred to simply as
“the Rebbe”) was the New York based chasidic leader who inspired the
transformation and growth of the Chabad-Lubavitch chasidic movement into an
international icon of Jewish tradition, pride and dynamism. Rabbi Schneerson
was also a scholar who possessed truly remarkable knowledge of both traditional
Rabbinic texts and Chabad chasidic texts. He was also an innovative religious
thinker, who created intellectual paradigms that would successfully perpetuate
tradition hand-in-hand with the progression of modernity.
[3] In recent years several academics have devoted time to serious
studies of Chabad Chasidism, including Professor Rachel Elior (The Paradoxical
Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism, SUNY Press, 1993)
and Dr. Naftali Loewenthal (Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the
Habad School, Chicago University Press, 1990), and more recently Professors
Elliot Wolfson (Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision
of Menaḥem Mendel Schneerson, Columbia University Press, 2009) and Immanuel
Etkes (Ba’al Hatanya: Rabbi Shneur Zalman Meliady Vereshita Shel Hasidut Chabad
(Ba’al Hatanya: Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi and the Origins of Chabad
Hasidism) The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2011).
[4] See my article here
for a related overview of how Rabbi Schneerson reconsidered the challenge of
political emancipation.
[5] See Torat Menachem - Sefer Maamarim
Melukot Vol. 3 (Vaad Hanachot BeLaHaK , 2002) p. 71<http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/mlukat/3/11/71>, and sources cited below.
Of course, this assumes
that there exists a quintessential “subjective” self that is greater than the
sum of “objectively” imposed circumstances (geography, community, social
standing and economics, etc.), a “divine self” that belongs to the eternal
realm of the spirit. This point is underscored by the notion that true freedom
of choice is only exercised for the good (See Sefer Ha’sichot - Torat Shalom
(Kehot Publication Societ, 1983), p. 220), while bad choices are ultimately
attributed to circumstance or “evil inclination” (yetzer ha’ra), which
leads the individual astray from their true selves (see the discussion in Torat
Menachem - Sefer Maamarim Melukot Vol. 2 (Vaad Hanachot BeLaHaK , 2002) p.
74<http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/mlukat/2/9/74>, based on Maimonides, Hilchot geirushin 2:20<http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/rambam.aspx?rid=3435>
). A secularist may well take issue with such an assumption, but must then also
confront the question, can the human ever be free to choose, or are all choices
dictated by circumstance?
In private
correspondence with this writer, Professor Pinar shared the following insight,
“freedom is best understood not as license but as opportunity to align oneself
toward the "right," for me a notion of ethics and justice that is
always situational (although never conflated or identical to the situation) and
thus variable if always linked to the eternal verities (such as compassion).”
This brings to mind the
interplay between the notions of specified divine providence (hashgachah
pratit) and free choice (bechirah chafshit). G-d orchestrates circumstance,
bringing you to an objectively ordained situation where you are given the
freedom to make a subjective choice. Somewhat paradoxically, it is the
objective situation that is variable, while it is the subjective choice that
touches eternity.
[8] In private correspondence with this writer,
Professor Pinar pointed out that while a line is drawn here between subjective
internalization and objective imposition, one might also conceive of internalization
as an instrument of objective imposition. He pointed out that secularists might
see this as an insidious attempt to disguise religious coercion under a false
aura of subjective choice.
This touches on the
question of how to distinguish between indoctrination and education, and also
on the question of the interplay that exists between objectivity and
subjectivity. I would suggest that the answer to the first question relates to
the degree to which the teacher cultivates the pupil’s subjective inclinations
and helps the pupil achieve Independence and completion as an individual.
Indoctrination entails that the subject submit and their character be stifled
for the sake of the objective cause. Education entails the cultivation and
expansion of the pupil’s individual character, in order that they may
themselves arrive at the objective ideal. The latter issue of the interplay
between objectivity and subjectivity is one that will be dealt with in more
detail below.
[9] See Tanya, Iggeret Ha-kodesh (Part IV),
Epistle 15<http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/369893/jewish/page.htm>,
viewable in English here<http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7960/jewish/Epistle-15.htm>,
and with commentary here<http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/1029319/jewish/Epistle-15.htm>.
[10] To cite all the occasions when Rabbi
Schneerson’s repeated the formulation “Torah [is called so, because it] derives
from the word hora’ah - teaching,” would provide some illustration of the
extant to which this theme permeated his weltanschauung. However, the immensity
of such a project renders it almost impossible. The following samples, selected
randomly from the first decade of Rabbi Schneerson’s public talks, will have to
suffice:
“Torah [is called so,
because it] derives from the word hora’ah - teaching. This means that
everything communicated in the Torah is a lesson applicable in every time and
in every place, in day to day life.” Sichot Kodesh 5013, p. 322<http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/pdfpager.aspx?req=4582&st=&pgnum=350&hilite=>.
“Torah [is called so,
because it] derives from the word hora’ah - teaching. Torah itself teaches the
individual and draws forth that the individual will conduct themselves so [i.e.
in accord with Torah law and lore], irrespective of personal inclination.”
Sichot Kodesh 5015, p. 248<http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/pdfpager.aspx?req=4584&st=&pgnum=271>.
“We have already
discussed many times that every aspect of Torah is eternally relevant for all
generations... even the stories, which are apparently connected to the time in
which the event took place... since Torah [is called so, because it] derives
from the word hora’ah - teaching, they are a lesson in every place and every
time until the end of all generations.” Sichot Kodesh 5018, p. 134<http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/pdfpager.aspx?req=4586&st=&pgnum=159>.
[12] The Principles of Education and Guidance,
English Translation by Kehot Publication Society viewable
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment