Chabad Inspires all Jews to Yearn for Mashiach

its so funny how some people just cought up by one line i mentioned and go crazy.
the idea of that misnagdim had those complaints, you can read about in sefer hasichos 5702, the debate in minsk, yes chabad sources, btw just find me letters etc from the above sources you wanted who write against chassidim at all maybe if you find letters from the time of the baal shem tov, you’ll find these reasons too. what do you claim the hisnagdus was all about?
anyway that was such a side point. but as i see, misnagdim just catch onto anything to harras chabad simple. (btw its basi ligani 5723 not 5729, typo)

And what letters, written by whom, from the time of the besht say this?

Maybe they were saying that general lomdim had gaavah issues; that I’ve seen before, but to slander the gedolei olam? Never

Being meshalesh has not been done by klal yisroel in millennia. We follow tosfos on that gemara which says that gemara bavli has all three, and we focus on it.

Avira, your “we follow” reflects someone you follow, why you are talking for others? In this case, it is not even a moderni opinion, but straight from Lakewood.

@sechel83 Do you believe that your Rebbe, the late and last Rebbe of Lubavitch Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson ZT”L is the one and only Moshiach ben Dovid, yes or no? And how prevalent is that belief among Chabad?

sechel83,

IMHO, you would be neither. So you actually believe that someone besides any of the seven Lubavitcher Rebbeim, zt”l can be Mashiach? Please answer “yes” or “no”. If this is the common belief by Chabad meshichists, then why all the effort to justify how the last Rebbe, zt”l will be Mashiach?

@sechel83 Also, I don’t know what you think “the neshama of yechida haklolis” means, but I can guarantee you that you (and others from Chabad) have a very different interpretation of it than Chassidim and other frum Jews.

I mean, like I said before. You do you. However, you should be aware as to how strange and abnormal many of your beliefs and practices are to frum Yidden who are not part of Chabad. And again, there are beliefs that are acceptable in Chabad circles that most frum (even Chassidish) places would throw the individual out on their head for expressing.

@sechel83 You are correct. Non Chabadniks do not hold of Chabad seforim in the same esteem that Chabad does. The concepts you mention, like “yechida haklalis”, may originate from something legitimate, like Tzemach Tzedek or Tanya, but it’s a single opinion out of many many other Chassidish, misnagdish, and Sefardish opinions. Futhermore, non-Chabadskers do not have the same interpretation that Chabad has of these concepts, especially considering the influential Messianics who have “interpreted” the late Lubavitcher Rebbe’s letters to explain these concepts in a way that makes their way of life seem in accordance with the Torah.

Chabad is the closest to what the Besht originally taught. IMO, that’s why it’s so controversial. The teachings of the Besht were extremely controversial, and chassidus was only accepted over time because it moved away from most of those teachings. Since Chabad is closer than other chassidic sects, it’s viewed as more problematic.
Yserbius, you label the Tzemach Tzedek and the Tanya as “legitimate”. Why? Many of the teachings within those have no mesorah behind them, and incorporate teachings of the Besht that were radical departures from traditional Judaism.
I once wanted to see if I could at least gain an understanding of Chassidus, so I found a chavrusah, a chassidish man, to learn Tanya with. I had a number of questions on it, and didn’t hesitate to ask them. After a few weeks, he told me he didn’t feel comfortable learning with me, as I was causing him to start doubting chassidus as well.
It only reinforced my belief that if someone who learns only chassidus would actually dig deep into the traditional sources (Rishonim, early acharonim, etc.), they’d realize that there are plenty of conflicts between the two.

Da, most of the tanya is based on kisvei arizal, firstly.

Secondly, the same can be said of learning rav chaim with a bochur, who expresses doubt after someone asks him some good kashya

Some chasidishe people aren’t used to vigorous kashas. learn xhasidus with someone qualified, not just anyone with a long jacket. a serious lomed Torah doesn’t doubt their mesorah because of kashos.

@DaMoshe I believe that the taynos against the Besht and Chassidus in general no longer apply today, consider the vast number of misnagdish Rabbonim and Talmidei Chachomim who respect Torah that comes from Chassidus. I don’t believe anyone in the coffee room is even remotely in a position to say anything against sifrei kodesh like Sefas Emes, Yismach Moshe, Shem MiShmuel, or Tanya .

Da, do you similarly not believe in the Arizals kabalah, because it was largely revelation based?

Litvishe have a mesorah from the Gaon, which was at the same time as the baal shem tov. Talmidei habaal shem said that their ways were really old, and the truth is that many chasidishe ideas can be found in other places, such as rabbeinu yonah.

You haven’t addressed my issue with your jumping to conclusions about chadidus because an individual man, not a rosh yeshiva or rov, couldn’t answer your kashos.

I had kashos on tanya and other seforim; did you even bother trying to answer them yourself, or did you come into the seder with preconceived notions against the seforim? You should treat a chasidishe sefer with the same seriousness as nefesh hachaim; I’ve asked kashos on that sefer too, and nobody shies away from answering them.

There are virtually no gedolei yisroel today who agree with your idea that the baal shem tov was simply mistaken or that people shouldn’t follow him. Later chasidusen didn’t move away from chasidus, they simply taught their generations. There was a time for a certain avodah, and there was a time for kotzk. There’s also a time for today’s chasidus.

Chasidus is about taking kabalah and using its ideas for avodas Hashem, in not a very different way than baalei mussar taking maamarei chazal and medrashim for the same purpose. One chasidishe gadol said that rav yisroel salanter does for the litvishe what I do for you. One of the gerrer rebbes told his chasidim that rav hirsch does for the yekkishe what i do for you.

Classic Chabad and, to a lesser extent, Breslov, use more kabalistic ideas than other groups; that’s the main difference.

Chasidus produced gedolei olam the likes of the divrei chaim, the rogotchover, rav meir shapiro, the sfas emes(who the brisker rov held was a massive gadol in nigleh too), the avnei nezer, the butchacher rov(aizer mikodesh on shu”a), and many, many others who were universally respected.

The Arizal never claimed to go up to shamayim and learn with Nevi’im. The claim was that Eliyahu came and learned with him. He was not opposed by the leading Rabbonim of his time, in fact, he was widely accepted.
The mesorah that litvish have from the Gra didn’t originate with him – he learned it from his Rabbeim.
Yes, there are chassidish Rabbonim who were great talmeidi chachomim, but as I said, that’s because chassidus moved away from the teachings of the Besht.
As for my questions on Tanya, I actually asked multiple people, including some Chabad Rabbis. I never got any satisfactory answers.
I don’t think all chassidim are completely wrong in their observance, because again, they don’t follow all the Besht’s teachings. Specifically when it comes to learning Torah, they moved away from the Besht’s views, and towards the Gra’s. I had Rabbeim in yeshiva who were chassidish, who I have tremendous respect for. I’ve met Rebbes who I thought were incredible, and gave me tremendous chizzuk – in fact, one of the main reasons I became a baal tefillah is because of something a Chassidish Rebbe told me!

Da, when I’ve talked about chasidishe torah with Lubavitchers, they’re on a different spectrum than others. Their answers and logic doesn’t satisfy me either. Plus, being a “rabbi” in chabad doesn’t mean that much. Anyone mildly successful is pushed into smicha, many getting it online.

Go to a talmid chacham with your kashas; ask someone like rav Efraim wachsman, better yet, post one or two here, and see what you get – I’m very interested to know what kashos are bothering you.

Also, the arizal said that he learned his Torah from heavenly revelations. The Gaon also had tons of revelations; he said he didn’t want them because they didn’t require ameilus. The shu”a also learned from a malaach; same thing with the baal shem learning from Achiah – it means his neshoma came to him and taught him torah. I don’t know why this is so surprising.

All of the talmidei habaal shem were first known to be very big in nigleh, too. It’s true that the baal shem himself did not reveal himself initially as a talmid chacham; I’m sure there were reasons for this, but his talmidim were – we’re not talking about a person who courted simpletons. They respected him and saw what he was in both nistar and nigleh.

Sechel….whenever a non Lubavitcher says something in the name lf “the gaon” it refers to the vilna gaon.

Avirah, you are very confused and unaware. What happened in Chabad is what the Gr’a and other Misnagdim were afraid was going to happen. Something is based on the Ari’s Kabbolah is fully-proofed against problems? Let me break it to you: Shabtai Tzvi teachings were based on Zohar. Learning Kabbolah is a very big thing, but also very dangerous.

Avira, again, there is a difference between revelations coming down to someone, and someone claiming that he ascended to Heaven and was able to explore there, as the Besht did. Nobody else made a claim that spreading their particular teachings would bring Mashiach. And none of the others were widely denounced by the Gedolim of their time.

its funny, if the alter rebbe didm’t write the shulchan aruch, the misnagdim probobly would have said today that he wasn”t a talmid chacham, like some might say about the other chabad rebbe’s. the rogotchover gaon once spoke about the rebbe maharash that he was a great gaon, someone asked him how does he know being that he didn’t speak or print much niglah? the rogetchover answered that he can see from his maamarim chassidus. maybe others should follow his example, look at a maamer of the rebbe or previous chabad rabbaim, although its not a pilpul on a tosfos, but in one sefer maamarim is quoted from all over shas, rishonim, achronim. all medrashim, tons of sifrai kabala etc. thousends of m”m, seems like some are just blind. i dont understand how some can say such stupid things that about the rebbes.

Avirah…, Chazon Ish was a Misnaged. What changed from his times? Your statement that allegedly there are very few Misnagdim today proves nothing. Also, some Rabbis may be – they just do not loudly publicize it.

@ avira – so? ok the rebbe printed on the parsha, the rebbe is entitled to do different. (btw the rebbe asked his father in law the frierdiker rebbe why he dosent speak ideas in niglah, and he said its not his mission in the world, so apparently the rebbe wanted to do it this way even though he could have printed on rambam and shas and maybe attracted more litvaks (i doubt it, cuz i don’t believe thats the issue misnagdim have). there is a maase the alter rebbe said if he would have taken out certain world of tanya he would have another 100,000 chasidim, but chassidus demands emes.
im just saying that anyone honest to looks into the rebbe’s torah will see. (the rebbe is the only gadol that thousends of hours of his life is on video and audio, and it cant be denied his greatness.
the baba sali wrote to the rebbe the following (you can see it in non chabad sources)
לכבוד קודש הקודשים, עמוד העולם, אור ישראל ותורתו, שלא קם כמותו, שר התורה והוראה, אהוב בשמים ובארץ, מורנו ורבינו הרב מנחם מענדל מליובאוויטש, הנני עבדך הקטן ישראל,
עליתי ממרוקו לארץ ישראל, ואנשים כאן לא נתנוני השב רוחי, באים אלי בכל שעות היום והלילה, ונבצר ממני לעבוד את ה’ כאשר היתה באומנה עימי, ימים ולילות שלא ביטלתי מן התורה רגע אחד.
ועתה נפשי בשאלתי אם אוכל לבוא אליך לארצות הברית לגור על ידך בקרבת מקום, ואסתר מעיני כל איש.
קיבלתי עלי שמה שיורני מורנו הרב אעשה, כיון שהוא עמד העולם, וכך הכריזו עליו בשמים”.
and if there is no misnagdim today, great, that’s what the rebbe said, baruch hashem

#avira
correction . R weintraub was not a misnaged against chasidsm.

Yankel, he was. I’ve heard several comments from him to this effect, mostly about learning specifically.

@Zaphod
they are an integral part bec they believe in ikarei emuna and are mizera yisrael , but in way of thinking , how to develop an argument , what is considered a valid argument , what is not considered a valid argument,
and MOST IMPORTANTLY whether we can and should be choker after someone who was controversial [meaning some rabbanim disapproved of him ] COUPLED with the fact that part of his yerousha ruchanit was controversial , and should you be choker whether those two thing are connected or not – in that there is no common ground whatsoever .

Yankel, i heard him say that if chasidim learn nistar as superficially as they learn nigleh, then they don’t really know it.

Never heard him quote tanya, but it doesn’t contradict the above, since everyone agreed that the baal hatanya did not learn superficially

Avira says: Who was the Rayatz supposedly debating? A random am haaretz who happened to be a litvak who maybe said some nonsense?

Good point, but this is a fallacy flund all around. There are several stories that the Briskers repeat often aling the same lines, of how one of their Rabbeim responded to a random, perhaps unlearned, Chossid (who spoke in a way that no Chossid worth his money would speak).