How Antinomian Threads in Chassidus Gave Us Heretics like Nathan Lopes Cardozo

A recent Jewish Press interview quotes meshumad “Dutch-Israeli Orthodox rabbi, philosopher, and Jewish scholar Nathan Lopes Cardozo” rejecting the mitzvah to wipe out Amalek.

When he bloviates irrelevantly about Avraham arguing whether Sedom should be destroyed, the interviewer raises the obvious counter: “And yet shortly thereafter, God tells Abraham to execute his son Isaac, and gives him kudos for the fact that he tried to comply.”

Here is Cardozo’s response:

I am of the opinion that Abraham, by being prepared to do so, to execute his son, failed the test. I think that the reading of the binding of Isaac should be different from the conventional approach as some Hasidic texts indeed seem to suggest. For an excellent overview read: The Fear, the Trembling and the Fire by my dear friend, Professor Jerome (Yehudah) I. Gellman, published by University Press of America in 1994.

It goes on, of course, Afra lepumei.

This isn’t to say there’s no difference between saying a Chassidic homily on the one hand, and pretending, as does Cardozo, this has any bearing on practical halacha, on the other. Still, the earlier imputed authority was a necessary condition for the later perversion. And this assumes it really was all just homilies, after all, of which I’m not so sure.

I found this through Rabbi Grossman’s powerful rebuttal of some sections.