- This topic has 518 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
What I think CS is trying to say, and others mentioned it too is that practically everything we believe in this subject comes straight out of Tanya, Perek Bais:
וכן בכל דור ודור יש ראשי אלפי ישראל שנשמותיהם הם בחי’ ראש ומוח לגבי נשמות ההמון וע”ה וכן נפשות לגבי נפשות כי כל נפש כלולה מנפש רוח ונשמה מכל מקום שרש כל הנפש רוח ונשמה כולם מראש כל המדריגות עד סוף כל דרגין המלובש בגוף עמי הארץ וקל שבקלים נמשך ממוח העליון שהיא חכמה עילאה כביכול …
כי יניקת וחיו’ נפש רוח ונשמה של עמי הארץ הוא מנפש רוח ונשמה של הצדיקים והחכמים ראשי בני ישראל שבדורם: ובזה יובן מאמר רז”ל על פסוק ולדבקה בו שכל הדבק בת”ח מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו נדבק בשכינה ממש כי ע”י דביקה בתלמידי חכמים קשורות נפש רוח ונשמה של עמי הארץ ומיוחדות במהותן הראשון ושרשם שבחכמה עילאה שהוא ית’ וחכמתו א’ והוא המדע כו’
I don’t have time to write up what this all means for those who need it, but you can readily access translations and explanations online. If the mods allow, here’s a link http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7881/jewish/Chapter-2.htm
Honestly, I’m sure Chabadshluchah will defend herself that she didn’t mean it the way I understood it, but why doesn’t the very expression totally revile her?
” And for the reference, questions to Cunin can be addressed to him, I don’t work for him.”
Do you disagree with what he said in the video? Or are you afraid to answer that?
You say you dont daven to the rebbe, but you still ask him for Brachos-from his picture, no less (At least that is what CS said). That is a lot different than going to a tzaddik’s kever and davening to Hashem in the zechus of that tzaddik (or possibly asking the tzaddik to intercede on your behalf).
@DaasYochid,
“When those in Chabad, such as yourself, whose shittos do not include such blatent a”z turn a blind eye to such talk (and actions) and merely “take issue” with it, and write it off as mere semantics, you allow the very serious and rampant problem to fester and get worse.”I know what she meant, and it’s not A”Z. It’s a matter of not properly conveying what she’s trying to say. In this case, it is semantics.
When (I haven’t yet) I see a case of real A”Z, (rumor has it that there are several in Israel, Tzfas specifically, and they definitely are marginalized, no one considers such people frum, never mind Chabad.) I will condemn it and call it out for what it is. I’m trying to convey normative Chabad ideology, which is based on the words of the Baal HaTanya, in this case, Tanya Perek Bais.It’s a matter of not properly conveying what she’s trying to say.
Probably true, but again, why doesn’t the very expression revile her? There’s something very wrong going on if a mainstream shluchah can use that lashon.
Saying that the Rebbe (tzadikim) is ch”v partners with Hashem has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted from Tanya.
@Slabodka,
“Do you disagree with what he said in the video? Or are you afraid to answer that?You say you dont daven to the rebbe, but you still ask him for Brachos-from his picture, no less (At least that is what CS said). ”
How can I comment on a video that I’ve never seen? I never even heard of it before this thread.
I ask for brochos from the Rebbes picture? I never have, and have never seen such a thing. I ask for a brocha by writing a Pidyon Nefesh and placing it at the Rebbes Tziyun.
@DaasYochid,
“Probably true, but again, why doesn’t the very expression revile her? There’s something very wrong going on if a mainstream shluchah can use that lashon.”I certainly would never use such a loshon, and it does indeed scare me. I have heard people using strange l’shonos, and I’m not the only Lubavitcher bothered by them. But it’s innocence and naivete, not A”Z.
The problem is that I don’t know all the Nigleh sources offhand. But I do remember the phrase shutfim bmaase beraishis to be said about every Jew who keeps shabbos. In Nigleh. I also know that Hashem wants tzaddikim involved with decisions down here in this world and I can bring plenty of stories on that point. And remember learning the expression partners – shutfim as well. Maybe gaon or aww would know.
When you can use an expression about your rebbe which is exactly what the christians say about their god, you need to seriously think about where you’ve gone wrong.
But it’s innocence and naivete, not A”Z.
How do you differentiate? How do you keep people from believing the words they say, and the words their parents and in some cases teachers say?
It seems to me that you are grossly underestimating the severity of the issue, even if we accept that people don’t actually believe the words they use as they are normally used.
OK I looked it up myself cuz it caused such an uproar. Here’s two the second one why not if I’m looking up the first.
1) Moshe, by judging correctly, chazal say that as a result, “kilu naase shotef lHkbh bmaase beraishis” that’s where I got that expression from, k?
That’s shabbos 10, 1.
2) about Moshe rabbeinu it states in medrash tehillim, 90 “mechetzio ulmata Ish, mchetzyo ulmaala haElokim.” Same idea of tzadik being conduit for Hashem as mimutza hamechaber because Hahem reveals Himself through the tzadik.
Also, the first perek in Bava Basra (also nigleh) is called Hashutfin.
CS and SH
R’ Eliezer the Tana held that you can be mchalel Shabbos not only for the Mitzva of Milla but for maksherai Milla as well. His whole town followed his psak and where even saved from a terrible decree for doing so. Can I bring his opinion as evidence in a halachic discussion on the subject? No. Why? Because while EVERYONE held that (1) He was a great Tana and (2) his town was certainly obligated to follow his psak his opinion on this matter was rejected by the rest of the sages of his and subsequent generations. So…
1. In light of the above when answering questions regarding matters where the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L took a position that has not been accepted by others it doesn’t make sense to use him as the source for your answer. The refusal to accept such an answer does not = rejecting the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a Gadol B’Yisroel and does not = refusing to accept all legitimate Torah sources.
Goodness go blame the gemara for using such a scary expression that’s where I picked it up from.
And I really don’t care what other religions say. We’re not supposed to learn them anyway. If they say something true, then it’s source is in Torah, if it’s false, then it’s their own mishugas that they mixed in. I suppose that’s why you guys have such a hard time talking about moshiach as a real subject cuz you don’t want to sound like other religions. By me, my source is Torah and that’s all.
By me, my source is Torah and that’s all.
If you can say that the Rebbe is partners with Hashem in running the world ch”v, then no, your source isn’t the Torah. And don’t go blaming the gemara for using the word partner when it obviously doesn’t mean that.
Instead of defending the indefensible, go figure out where you went off that you could use such words. I don’t mean the individual words, I mean that sentence.
@CS,
I think you can and should admit that it’s wrong to say “the Rebbe is Hashems partner in running the world”. This is very unsettling language, which no Chossid I know has said. It doesn’t say this anywhere in Chassidus. You have obviously learned V’atah Tetzavah, all about the role of a Tzadik and a Nossi. It doesn’t say this. I don’t know where you are getting these words from. Don’t defend the indefensible. Admit that it’s wrong, and explain what you do (or should) believe.“Moshe, by judging correctly, chazal say that as a result, “kilu naase shotef lHkbh bmaase beraishis” that’s where I got that expression from, k?”
CS,
That goes on EVERY judge as per Talmud and beg. of Shu”A CM. So does it include anyone that is Mayid BeMaiseh Breshis i.e. anyone saying VayChulu Shabbos night, so are we to give the above the same status as the Rebbi?
Obviously, it is not to be taken literately…OK I think I get where I was unclear? Tzaddikim agent running the world as a separate entity from Hashem cvs.
The gemara is saying they’re considered His partners by doing their Avodas Hashem, not that they have free reign to make separate decisions cvs.
Tzaddikim don’t even have a separate will other than what Hashem wants so that would be impossible.
However Hashem does ask and involve tzaddikim in His decision making process, like the example I gave above about the war with Napoleon. So the word partner I guess was not the right word and wouldn’t have been used this context so I’m sorry I used it. It applies after the fact to whet they’re considered. Ok how’s that?
Tzaddikim don’t even have a separate will other than what Hashem wants so that would be impossible.
Oh, no, here we go again with tzaddikim not having bechirah…
Why can’t you just accept that they’re very special human beings? This is what got you into trouble in the first place.
@DaasYochid,
This CS isn’t making up. It says so in Tanya. A Tzadik the way the Baal HaTanya describes it, has conquered his Yetzer HoRa, and his only Ratzon is to fulfill Hashems Ratzon. Again, maybe a bad choice of words, but the concept is there.@CS,
“However Hashem does ask and involve tzaddikim in His decision making process, like the example I gave above about the war with Napoleon. So the word partner I guess was not the right word and wouldn’t have been used this context so I’m sorry I used it. It applies after the fact to whet they’re considered. ”I think that just illustrates the idea of צדיק גוזר הקב”ה מקיים . I’m not sure why you make it into a whole “partner” idea.
The Alter Rebbe didn’t want Napoleon to be victorious, worried that it would affect Yiddishkait in Russia, (btw, this idea is also very well explained in V’atah Tetzavah) and the Maggid of Kozhnitz (and others, R. Shlomo of Karlin, the Berditchever, R. Mendel of Rimanov) disagreed. They felt that a victory for Napoleon would herald the coming of Moshiach. On Rosh Hashonah 5573 (1812- 1813) both the Tzadikim rose early to be the first to blow the Shofar, the Magid of Kozhnitz went to mikva, and began davening as early as possible, the Alter Rebbe blew his Shofar at the crack of dawn before davening. “The Litvak (as the Alter Rebbe was known, being from Lithuania) has bested us” the Magid of Kozhnitz told his Talmidim. In the end, Czar Alexander was indeed victorious over Napoleon.
I see this story as צדיק גוזר.
This CS isn’t making up.
I know. I’m sure it’s not universally accepted; it’s certainly not my (Litvish yeshiva) mesorah.
But even if you accept the concept, can’t you see how dangerously it’s being applied?
“Not when Hashem Himself decides to make tzaddikim His partners in running the world – like all the miracle stories of tzaddikim you hear, just one example – how Hashem left the option of Napoleon or Czar winning the war up to which tzadik would blow shofar first”
Again, PLEASE don’t expect others to accept as fact stories that have no source other than lubavitch story books!
@DaasYochid,
“I know. I’m sure it’s not universally accepted; it’s certainly not my (Litvish yeshiva) mesorah.But even if you accept the concept, can’t you see how dangerously it’s being applied?”
Maybe it’s not universal. I don’t know. But Tanya is pretty accepted, so you shouldn’t have a problem with us believing that. I don’t think she’s applying that incorrectly. She didn’t base the partner stuff on that.
just joined this discussion- but we DO NOT daven to the rebbe. anyone who says that is wrong. what we are doing is asking the rebbe to daven to hashem on our behalf.
To make this clearer- take moshe rabbeinu. would anyone consider him avodah zara? no. but he was the shliach between hashem and the yidden.Still waiting for CS or anyone else to explain why it is OK to use a picture of the rebbe that can’t be seen at the time as some sort of kedushah/segulah. Why isn’t that like what dor enosh did?
But Tanya is pretty accepted, so you shouldn’t have a problem with us believing that.
That’s not my point. I’m not expecting you to disagree with the Tanya.
I don’t think she’s applying that incorrectly. She didn’t base the partner stuff on that
I think the moshichism and deification is a result of that mentality.
@RSO,
“Again, PLEASE don’t expect others to accept as fact stories that have no source other than lubavitch story books!”I was waiting for you to say that. How predictable.
Firstly, stories said by the Rebbeim aren’t “Lubavitch story books”.Secondly, this story is said throughout the Chasidishe velt, I myself have heard it from other Chassidim.
And the Baal HaTanyas opposition to Napoleon is recorded by him, himself.
If B[ona]p[arte] will be victorious, Jewish wealth will increase, and the prestige of the Jewish people will be raised; but their hearts will disintegrate and be distanced from their Father in Heaven. But if A[lexander] will be victorious, although Israel’s poverty will increase and their prestige will be lowered, their hearts will be joined, bound and unified with their Father in Heaven. (Igros Kodesh Admur HaZaken, letter #64)
Aww,
“the misnagdim are the ones truely bring metame sheretz and will never accept they are wrong no matter what source is brought due to their preconceived notions.”
Speaking common sense: You do realize that misnagdim are simply following Mesorah of hundreds of yrs, whereas it is Chassidim that started something new, so basically “misnagdim” have nothing to be “Metaher” or any need to answer. It is Chassidim that had the need to explain themselves (whether right or wrong is not the issue and is beyond the scope.. nor even is it our Musag to comprehend the true differences of the dispute ).
It is quiet interesting how thing have turned around…
“I see this story as צדיק גוזר.”
You should really ask yourself. Do you really think the Rambam would have accepted this sort of logic as proof. Not that I am doubting the very story, but if you would like to prove the point of צדיק גוזר – you cannot bring any stories that we know only by mere storytelling tales. There are much better sources for that. Moreover, from the stories it is certain that in any way whether he won or lost, you could have pinned the very same above צדיק גוזר on any side.
I see this story as צדיק גוזר.
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn’t it stated in the other thread that according to Chabad thought, there is only one צדיק הדור?
If so, why was there even a competition?
@DaasYochid,
“Pardon my ignorance, but wasn’t it stated in the other thread that according to Chabad thought, there is only one צדיק הדור?If so, why was there even a competition?”
Huh? There are many Tzadikim in every generation, and here we have to Tzadikim on opposing sides.
@Gaon,
I’m not bringing this as proof for anything, if you are following what’s going on, I was responding to CS bringing this story. And it’s not a “mere story” it was told by the Rebbeim.Perhaps it was someone else who stated that.
@DY in so happy to inform you that here you misunderstood and we do hold of other tzaddikim. What was said was that there is only one Nassi hador. But there can be many tzaddikim, although we do seem to have an acute shortage since after the holocaust.
It was chabadshlucha in this and follow up posts.
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/mesichists-explained-by-chabadshlucha#post-1408363
BTW just to clarify, I never used the term partner before, although I thought my intent was clear as given by the example. It was an ill attempt at nigle speak as we have many different terms we use. Like we don’t use the term gadol in lubavitch really.
since I saw it in a halachic analysis discussion, I thought you might throw around the term. Regardless I shan’t use it again as I now see how it can be so misinterpreted and in any case, its clearly not nigle speak.
BTW now that your brought it up, I did some further research as requested in the last thread and the term Nassi hador is brought in a non lubavitch Sefer kabbola called kehilas Yaakov.
There it states that Nassi stands for nitzutzo shel Yaakov avinu.
Just like Yaakov avinu had a neshama klalis that included the neshamos of klal Yisrael, in every generation there is a nitzutz of Yaakov which means this individual possesses all neshamos of his generation within his own neshama, and everything passes through him.
What was said was that there is only one Nassi hador.
So what business did the other one have arguing with him?
The Rebbe himself asks this question why it’s mutar to betten a Rebbe. In his sicha of acharon shel Pesach in Taf Shin Yud, he says that this is a chiddush in Chabad which is not seen in any other chassidim, that THE REBBE IS HASHEM HIMSELF ENCLOTHED IN A BODY!!!! (his words: atzmus umehus areingeshtelt in a guf!) And that’s why the Rebbe is not an intermediary to Hashem, since he is Hashem Himself!!!! Now someone needs a lot of explaining to do!! And it ain’t the litvishers!
I think this is what he’s referring to.
This is the sichah addressed earlier in the thread.
I don’t recall aww, CS, and SHY acknowledging that the Rebbe was actually answering the question of how one can “betten by a rebbe”, but it certainly seems he is.
You have posted this same content over and over and over. Please move on. For the sake of your own health and growth. – 29
SHY wrote: “Secondly, this story is said throughout the Chasidishe velt, I myself have heard it from other Chassidim.”
Quite possibly. But where did they get it from if not from a lubavitch source? I myself tell stories that I have heard about lots of tzaddikim but I can’t vouch for them especially if a story about the Ploni Rebbe was told by his grandson.
And the Baal HaTanyas opposition to Napoleon is recorded by him, himself.”
Yes. It was. But the story about the tekias shofor has no source other than lubavitch (I could be wrong as I haven’t read every storyin every book, but please show me an external source if you can), so to quote it to prove anything about lubavitch is circular reasoning.
And still no reply about using hidden pictures as kedushah/segulah…
I think this has been mentioned before in an earlier thread but to claim that there is only one Nossi Hador is incorrect. In fact, there are none!
The term Nossi was last correctly applied to the last of the Nessi’im in E”Y (I don’t know who that was). Lubavitch – I don’t know which rebbe of theirs it was – decided to adopt the title for themselves, and because no one else believes in this title there is no one who is competing for it!
So lubavitch can safely claim that their rebbe was/is the Nossi Hador… but they are wrong.
May I ask how the Lubavitcher rebbe was the nosi hador when the vast majority of frum Jews during his time we’re not affiliated with him?
lol mods i hear that! To be honest it really does bother me since I wish there could be full achdus amongst all of us. Not just everyone but one group. I say it from the heart.
@RSO,
“so to quote it to prove anything about lubavitch is circular reasoning”
If only you (and some others) would actually read what I’ve been posting, I’m not trying to prove anything. I was countering an argument which used this story.Pictures of Rebbeim?
I’m not sure if people place a picture of the Rebbe under the baby’s head by a bris, it’s certainly possible, I’ve never seen it, but I don’t have a problem with it if it is done. How exactly does it bother you? If it’s not a legitimate Minhag, I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t think it’s problematic in any way.Regarding the Sicha that DaasYochid so kindly uploaded, I’ll try get to typing something up tomorrow. In the meantime, before cursing out something (most of) you haven’t even read, try reading it in full.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.