Be a Partner in the Pulse of Beis Mevakesh Lev - For almost 20 years, B’chasdei Hashem, this space has been a home for seekers—a place where Torah is accessible to everyone, everywhere, without a paywall. We’ve shared over thousands and thousands of pages of learning together. But to keep the lights on and ensure this library remains free and growing for the next generation of Mevakshei Lev, I need your partnership.
Your contribution isn't just a donation; it's the fuel that keeps these shiurim reaching hearts across the globe. Whether it’s the cost of a coffee or a monthly sponsorship, you are making this Torah possible.
[Donate via PayPal/Zelle: alchehrm@gmail.com] Thank you to my beloved friends for standing with me.
The Divine Algorithm: The Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Metaphysics of Technology
The Lubavitcher Rebbe was surprisingly optimistic—some might even say radically unperturbed—regarding the use of technology for holy purposes. To the youth of a previous generation, the Rebbe’s approval of broadcasting Tanya (the foundational text of Chabad Chassidus) over the radio seemed almost banal. The logic appeared simple: if technology can be used for a positive end, why not harness it? This pragmatic embrace extended to cartoons, international satellite broadcasts, and the early frontiers of the internet.
However, over the last fifteen years—marked by the "anti-social-media" fervor, the pathologizing of "dopamine loops," and a structural anxiety regarding "the algorithm"—the vast majority of religious thinkers have turned technophobic. As Marshall McLuhan famously warned, “We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.” Today’s religious critics fear that the tools have finally begun to win.
The Battle Lines: Liberalism vs. Pessimism
To understand the Rebbe’s unique stance, we must look at the two dominant frameworks of tech criticism.
First, there is the Liberal Enlightened view. This perspective centers on the "sovereign individual"—a self-contained agent who uses tools as neutral instruments. Here, technology is what we make of it because the human will is the primary mover. As the philosopher John Dewey might suggest, the tool is merely an extension of human intent. The individual is not subject to the limitations of his tools; he transcends them.
Then come the Religious Pessimists. They argue that the liberal view is a dangerous fantasy. Drawing on Neil Postman and others, they assert that every medium has an inherent nature—a "bias"—that dictates its use. Heidegger noted in The Question Concerning Technology: “The essence of technology is by no means anything technological.” It is, rather, a way of "enframing" reality that turns the world (and the human soul) into mere "standing reserve" or raw material.
The pessimist argues that if you allow religious teaching to be conveyed exclusively through the "scroll" of social media, you will inevitably get a "scroll religion"—shallow, performative, and fleeting. They fear it may be impossible to salvage "pure human existence" as G-d intended—a life they view as essentially pre-technological—under the weight of modern digital constraints.
The Third Way: Chassidic Metaphysics
The Rebbe’s optimism does not stem from a naive liberal view of "neutral tools." Rather, it is grounded in the metaphysics of Chassidus. To understand the Rebbe, one must understand the Chassidic concept of Tzurah (Form).
The religious pessimist is an instinctual essentialist. He believes that in a world ordered by G-d, every creation is defined by its "form." To the pessimist, the "form" of the internet is so corrupted—or so inherently distracting—that the "matter" of Torah cannot survive the transition.
Chassidus agrees that forms are real; indeed, the Tanya teaches that the "constantly spoken word of G-d" is the indwelling nature of every creature. However, the Rebbe points to a deeper truth found in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah: the four elements are not static; they convert into one another. This implies a fundamental physical unity—that beneath the surface of pluralistic "forms," there is a single, underlying reality.
The Vindications of Science
In the medieval mind, the difference between fire and water was irreducible. Nature was a "manyness." But modern science has vindicated the Rambam by demolishing formal essentialism from within. We now know that matter and energy are one. We know that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force are unified.
As the Rebbe often noted, this scientific shift mirrors a spiritual one: the dominant intellectual framework of our age has moved from seeing natural forces as independent entities to seeking a single operative unity. In the Rebbe's view, the radio is not a "secular" form that happens to carry a "holy" message. Rather, the radio’s very existence—which allows a voice to transcend space and time—is a physical manifestation of G-dliness.
The Medium is Not the Master
The Rebbe’s perspective offers a sophisticated synthesis. He acknowledges the pessimist’s point: the radio does have a nature that shapes the message. But he rejects the idea that this form is "sovereign."
When the Rebbe was challenged on using modern media, he did not argue that technology was neutral. He argued it was teleological—created by G-d specifically for this holy purpose. He frequently cited the Midrash: “Gold was only created for use in the Mishkan (the Tabernacle).” Though gold was first used by man to build a Golden Calf, that was a perversion of its true "form." Its ultimate purpose was to house the Divine.
The Rebbe once remarked:
"Every thing in this world was created by G-d for a purpose... If you use a technology to spread the knowledge of G-d, you are not merely 'using' it; you are redeeming it, revealing why it was brought into existence in the first place."
The Speaker vs. The Speech
In the final analysis, the debate is not about the technology, but about the "valence" of the speaker. Are we witnessing the "Prophecy of the Chariot," where the form of the "ox" or the "eagle" is a vehicle for the Divine? Or are we building a "Golden Calf"—an attempt to trap G-d within a human-made container?
The "technology of the Golden Calf" is abhorrent not because of the gold, but because it is a unilateral attempt to make the medium the master. The Lubavitcher Rebbe only appears to hold a liberal view because he recognizes a truth the traditionalist often misses: there is a quality to a thing that runs deeper than its distinct self.
Forms are real, but they are not ultimate. As the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (6:11) concludes: “All that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He created solely for His glory.” In the Rebbe’s view, if the "algorithm" exists, it exists to lead us back to the One. No medium can exist without eventually accepting this message.
----
The Chasm of the Screen: A Rebuttal to Technological Optimism
The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s vision of a "unified" reality—where even the most mundane or modern tool is merely a hidden vessel for the Divine—is undeniably poetic. It is a high-level "Metaphysics of Redemption." However, this optimism borders on a dangerous "over-spiritualization." By focusing on what technology could be in a perfected world, we risk losing the battle for the human soul in this world.
1. The Fallacy of the "Gold for the Mishkan" Analogy
The argument that "gold was created for the Temple" is often used to justify the use of modern tools. But this ignores the historical reality: though gold’s ultimate purpose was the Tabernacle, the Jewish people first used it to build the Golden Calf, an act that nearly led to their total annihilation.
While the elements of technology may be neutral in the abstract, the vessels we are handed today are not "raw gold." They are pre-formed "Calves." A smartphone is not a neutral piece of plastic and silicon; it is a meticulously engineered delivery system for Lashon Hara (gossip), Nivul Peh (obscenity), Bittul Torah (the wasting of time) and endless quantities of znus. To suggest we can simply "pour" Torah into these vessels without the vessels contaminating the Torah is to ignore the Chassidic concept of Kli (vessel) itself. A polluted vessel makes the water undrinkable.
2. The Erosion of Havdala (Separation)
The foundation of Jewish life is not "Unity" in the sense of blurring boundaries, but Havdala—distinction. We distinguish between the holy and the profane, the light and the dark. The Rebbe’s optimism suggests that the "profane" nature of the medium is a surface manifestation that can be bypassed.
One can argue the opposite: the medium is the environment. If you study Torah on the same device used to watch mindless entertainment or engage in political vitriol, the Torah itself becomes "flattened." It becomes just another notification in a stream of digital noise. As the Kotzker Rebbe might have suggested, G-d does not reside where He is "let in" if the door is also left open to the Sitra Achra (the Other Side).
3. The Psychology of the "Animal Soul"
The Chassidic analysis of the "Unity of Forces" is a discourse for the Neshama. But the Torah was given to human beings who possess an Nefesh HaBehamis (Animal Soul). This lower soul is not moved by the "fundamental unity of electromagnetism"; it is moved by dopamine, instant gratification, and the "lust of the eyes."
The "pessimist" recognizes that we are not angels. We are creatures of habit and biology. The algorithm is not a "neutral tool"; it is a predator designed by the world's most brilliant minds to bypass our free will. To tell a person they can "redeem" the internet is like telling a person they can find G-dliness in a house of ill-repute. While theoretically true in the highest Kabbalistic realms, it is a spiritual death sentence for the average person.
4. The Medium Does Change the Message
The Rebbe’s view suggests that Tanya on the radio is still Tanya. But the "form" of the radio (or the internet) changes the nature of the thought itself. Torah is meant to be studied with Ameilus—toiling, requiring deep concentration, presence, and a connection between teacher and student.
The internet demands brevity, "shareability," and "likes." When Torah is adapted to these forms, it inevitably becomes "Torah-Lite." We lose the capacity for the "thick" existence of the Beis Medrash and replace it with a "thin" digital simulation. We are not "conveying the Speaker"; we are turning the Speaker into a soundbite.
5. The Danger of "Everything is Holy"
Finally, there is a profound communal danger in the "optimistic" view. When we say that "everything was created for G-d's glory," we risk legitimizing the very tools that are dismantling our communities. The Charedi world’s insistence on "kosher phones" and "internet filters" is not a denial of G-d’s unity; it is a recognition of G-d’s command to "Guard yourselves/your souls exceedingly."
If we believe technology is essentially "redeemable," we lower our guard. The religious pessimist’s "No" to technology is not a "No" to G-d’s creation; it is a "Yes" to the sanctity of the Jewish home.
Conclusion
The Rebbe’s view is the view of a Tzaddik who sees the world as it will be in the Messianic era—a world where "the occupation of the entire world will be only to know G-d." But we live in the "Night of Exile." In the dark, one does not go exploring the woods because "the woods are also G-d's creation." One stays inside, lights a small candle, and keeps the doors locked. The "pessimism" of the Charedi world is actually a profound realism: it is the realization that to keep the flame of Torah alive, we must sometimes protect it from the winds of "progress," no matter how "unified" that wind claims to be.
