- This topic has 854 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 2 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
sechel to me: its so important to keep people way from chabad, where is the MESORA for that?
Just for the record, I have never cited mesora as the reason that Lubavich is off the path. So use that argument with others, not with me.
At any rate, you don’t need a mesora to tell people to keep away from something dangerous, and if you takke learn Chofetz Chaim you’ll see that it is indeed a mitzvah to keep people away from something dangerous. For all the multitude of reasons mentioned in this and earlier threads, I believe – and others do as well – that Lubavich is dangerous when they spread their hashkafos, including Messianism, prophecy and nesius. So it is a mitzvah for me to forewarn other. There is no need for me to try to have a kol korei issued, I have a chiyuv on my own. Anyhow, most kol koreis are just ignored.
@sechel
There was no mesorah to keep yidden away from haskala – before haskala appeared .
Simply because it did not exist.
Same with any other new non torah approach / movement.@yankel, there never was a concensus to keep Yidden away from contemporary science. There were, and are, Yidden and talmidei chachamim who learnt and debated with their contemporary non Jewish chachamim. Of course, not everyone should, or could, do that.
a few points that i hope will answer all questions to anyone who is really honest.
Teachings of the baal shem tov (can be found in keser shem tov as well as many other seforim from the baal shem tovs talmidim)
1) G‑d sends a soul down to live on this world for seventy-eighty years, just to do a material favor for another—and certainly a spiritual one.
2) When someone issues a “verdict” on another, he is actually pronouncing his own verdict. For example, if one asserts that because of a certain misdeed another committed he is deserving of such-and-such punishment, he is actually issuing that verdict on himself. And conversely, if one says that because of a good deed or word that another has done he is deserving that G‑d should help him in the areas where he is needing, that blessing, too, is fulfilled on him himself.
3) Just like when a person looks into a mirror and sees dirt on his face, it is only because his face is dirty, so too when someone sees a fault in another, it is a sign that the fault exist within himself.
4) Upon hearing a negative report about another Jew, one should be greatly pained. For something bad has certainly occurred: If the report is true, then that individual is in an unhealthy situation; and if the report is untrue, then it is the one who is slandering is in a poor place.
5) The greatest of the great needs to learn from the simplest of the simple—for in the simple one sees the essence of simple sincerity.
6) The simpleton and the greatest scholar share the same lofty essence: they both are G‑d’s children. Just like a child’s countenance is similar to his father’s, so too G‑d’s children are merciful, bashful and kind—a reflection of their merciful, giving and forgiving Father.I hope this answers all attacks, if not see tanya perek 30, 32. About feeling lower than every jew even the lowest of the low, and about loving every jew as yourself.
Now before attacking chabad think of these 6 things. Very simple!
@sechel
All those marei mekomot which sechel is bringing us are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT here.Should we not investigate the merits and faults of zionism for example because of the hiyuv of ahavat yisrael ?
Or of conservative judaism ?
Or of any new movement which claims subservience to its new ideals ?
Are we meant to be transformed into happy go lucky simpletons who accept everything and anything with a joke and a glass of mashke ?This is a common mistake of habad apologists. They [intentionally?] confuse the erech of ahavat yisrael with discussion of habad ideologies’ merits and faults.
One can be anti habad ideology and love the individuals who happen to be its adherents., and conversely support habad ideology and hate individual habad people.
No one is ‘judging’ the ultimate worth in shamayim of the adherents of habad.
What we are attempting to establish , is the veracity of various habad claims . That is a TOTALLY SEPARATE MATTER.
So – again – a critic of habad – is not a “hater”.
.And still sechel hasn’t answered my question
I think the reason is because אין אדם משים עצמו רשע
sechel: Now before attacking chabad think of these 6 things. Very simple!
I find it interesting that you were never upset about the lashon hara when CS wrote a number of times how others look at their Rebbes, how others tznius is only for show and the like. Or is that why you wrote “before attacking chabad…?
And to address the point directly, it is a mitzvah to forewarn people about individuals and movements that lead others astray, and Lubavich with their messianism, claims to prophecy and nesius are doing just that. What it says in Kesser Shem Tov is not referring to misleading people or movements. If it was Lubavich would not have been able to publish a booklet about the Tzemach Tzedek’s fight with Haskalah, as well as a lot of the stories in the Rayatz’s Memoirs.
“Of course it’s important, just not something you exclude someone from a community for, any more than say lashon hara which is actually an explicit lav. There is no section of Gemara or anywhere else discussing tznius dress, whereas forbidden speech is.”
CS: So if a Chabad Shulcha regularly goes shopping in non tznius clothing, they’d be no consequences and she’d be allowed to continue representing Lubavitch? What if she regularly ate in public chicken-and-cheese sandwiches? There’s no explicit lav against eating chicken-and-cheese. What if she regularly drove to her Chabad House on Shabbos?
Where are you drawing the line? Why a bathing suit no but a short dress TMI in public when she sits, walks, edited or perhaps even when she walks has no repercussions regarding her representing Chabad?
all bold are edits for the benefit of those who are/should be careful with their ears
re tanya 32 where he clearly [in the brackets] qualifies the hiyuv of ahavat yisrael for resha’im to non apikorsim . For apikorsim he says – tahlit sin’a sene’tim. Sin’ah without qualification.
How that fits with contemporary habad theology and habad practise is a mystery.
.There definitely are gemaros about tznius details – Brachos 24a, kesuvos 72b, many other places.
The details of lashon hora are far lesa discussed, which precipitated the need for the chofetz chaim to delineate them
@AAQ
Not sure how contemporary science figures in this discussion.
.@yankel, you mentioned menorah against haskala, I am just saying that not everything that was appearing at the time was wrong. It is possible that immediate reaction to close the gates of the ghetto, yes helped to keep many inside, but also left others permanently outside. We are somewhat better now Dealing with modern world, and both haskalists and traditionalists made imperfect decisions at the time. Not blaming anyone, it was an unprecedented challenge.
CS (to Avira but it should have been to me): Shlichus, as I’ve said, encompasses a vast number of people holding at different standards. It is not the top 10% of lubavitch. There is no background checks on someone’s standards before they are assigned, if they signed up.
If that’s true that’s absolutely terrible! No background check on standards, so a shliach can be a total am haaretz, or a menuval, and he is officially recognized by the Lubavich powers-that-be as a shaliach.
I’d never heard that before, but now I have yet another reason to think that Lubavich is rotten at the core.
Again which sefarim all discuss this? Chabad? Other? Names?
ALL seforim that deal with Avodas Habirurim explain that once it is finished Mashiach comes immediately. Even Lubavich seforim say the same. Please enlighten us by quoting a sefer that explains that there can be a delay between the two. I admit I haven’t learnt everything, but everything I have learnt points to what I wrote, and I would like to see another viewpoint… if there is one.
The Rebbe said that Avodas haBirurim is finished because he knew what he was talking about. He said at the same time that it should not make sense, that it must be that what Hashem wants of us now is to switch to the avoda of Welcoming Moshiach.
I think I get it. The LR changed the playing field because it didn’t fit in with what he – and he alone – knew. If anyone else did something like that he would be called an apikorus, but not the LR because, according to the LR himself, he knew what he was talking about. And therefore what the RBSO has done simply makes no sense. So it’s LR -1, RBSO – 0.
Do you even realize what you are saying and what you expect us to believe?
Tznius is not just a crowning midah.
Chazal say when Hashem made Chava, he made every limb of hers swear that it would be tzenuah.
When bilaam wanted to destroy klal yisroel, he knew the only way to overcome Hashems love of the yidden was through something he hated so much that the hatred was greater than this love, and that’s zimah. “The God of these people hates zimah,” he said. (This explanation comes from the chasam sofer)
The very essence of klal yisroel is tznius – this is what made bilaam turn his curse into a bracha, when he saw that the yidden had tents that were made to preserve the privacy of each family.
It isn’t just a nice thing. And I don’t care what the Lubavitcher rebbe said about it – if he erred in it, then i can tell you exactly why he did according to reports that are known in the Yeshiva world, but i will not write about it on here because it’s extremely offensive.
Mods, please don’t post the part about CS definitely lying about K9 – i found out that there is a way to use it with windows 7. Disregard.
@coffee addict
this question?
Is saying Lubavitch is superior, Lashon hara?
no its not, seems like you should review the halachos
@yankel berel tanya 32, is that the only line of tnaya you know? see gemarah and rambam what is a min and an apikores. not keeping tznius dosent make someone an apikores, nor does saying the rebbe is moshiach, making fun of a talmid chachum makes someone an apikores.
and the rambam clearly says that people who were raised a certain way these halachos dont apply too, and the chofetz chaim also speaks about this that because of this these halachos dont apply
simply the tanya is coming to explain dovid hamelech, not tell you how to act today, (thats why its in brackets) vda”lSechel, if a jew violates a prohibition of tznius, it’s not apikorsus.
If a chabad shliach does so in public and teaches that tznius isn’t very important, then it most certainly is apikorsus.
Sechel,
Do you have a reason? Is it like saying Yiddishkeit is superior? What about the opposite? Saying Lubavitch are kofrim? What’s the difference?
@sechel
is that the only line of tnaya you know? see gemarah and rambam what is a min and an apikores. not keeping tznius dosent make someone an apikores, nor does saying the rebbe is moshiach, making fun of a talmid chachum makes someone an apikores.
and the rambam clearly says that people who were raised a certain way these halachos dont apply too, and the chofetz chaim also speaks about this that because of this these halachos dont apply
simply the tanya is coming to explain dovid hamelech, not tell you how to act today, (thats why its in brackets) vda”l
—-
Appreciate your typical habad answer.
They all seem follow the same script.Attack the questioner. [ is that the only line of tnaya you know?]
Change the subject. [see gemarah and rambam what is a min and an apikores. not keeping tznius dosent make someone an apikores, nor does saying the rebbe is moshiach, making fun of a talmid chachum makes someone an apikores.
and the rambam clearly says that people who were raised a certain way these halachos dont apply too, and the chofetz chaim also speaks about this that because of this these halachos dont apply]Give a non answer. [simply the tanya is coming to explain dovid hamelech, not tell you how to act today, (thats why its in brackets]
———————-Lets ignore the first two points and concentrate on the [non]answer.
Tanya asks on his previous principle where he states a Jew [i.e. US] is meant to have also love and also hate towards a sinner. How does that fit with the pasuk of tahlit sin’a , where David hamelech is SHOWING US that the proper approach is hate only , without love.
To summarize , we have conflicting directives for US , is it love plus hate, or is it hate only ?
Answer of the Tanya is that it depends which type of sinner is it , the apikores type of sinner or the ma’amin type of sinner.
The apikores type the ‘only hate’ approach applies FOR US.
The ma’amin type of sinner ‘the ‘love-hate’ type approach applies FOR US.That is the pshat for any unbiased learner of Tanya . This is plain obvious.
If pshat would be like sechel and all other habad apologists who are biased against the pashute pshat, why doesn’t tanya answer the question by saying the pasuk is talking about david hamelech and not for us ??
Al korchach that both his previous principle AND this pasuk are meant to be taken as directives FOR US.
.@yankel berel “There was no mesorah to keep yidden away from haskala – before haskala appeared .
Simply because it did not exist.”
Besides for moshiach, that you need a mesorah, please explain why?
@coffee addict. I hope you think yiddishkeit is superior.
I believe chabad is the penimius of yiddishkeit, as explained at length everywhere from Zohar to likutai sichos. I agree 100% that someone looking for bad in others will find it in chabad too , (the only difference is that by other sects of Jews if you don’t fit in, your kicked out, so satmer has no one not keeping all the takanos, or even the yeshivish where your not “kicked out” but anyone who went to bmg and left to work, he’s a Baal habas, so he’s not part of “yeshivish”
Avirah, nice chidush, but 1) I don’t believe any shliach does that and 2) “teaches that tznius is not very important ” if you mean by not screaming at people who don’t keep it or by being lenient themselves, this is non sence, maybe you should call every jew who comes in late to davening and “teaches” that it’s not important also an apikores, or someone who comes late to Seder , or answers a phone call in middle of learning etc cuz he’s showing that learning is not important.
This is what is called sinas chinam. See hachaltzu 5659. Trying to find issues with other Jews.Purim was BH great! Here’s what someone showed me (as far as I know Lubavich believes in Rebbi Yehudah Hachassid):
ספר חסידים (מרגליות) סימן רו
אם תראה שמתנבא אדם על משיח דע כי היו עסקיו במעשה כשפים או במעשה שדים או במעשה שם המפורש ובשביל שהם מטריחים את המלאכים אומרים לו על משיח כדי שיתגלה לעולם (על שהטריחו את המלאכים) ולבסוף יהיה לבושת ולחרפה לכל העולם על שהטריחו המלאכים, או השדים באים ולומדים לו חשבונות וסודות לבושתו ולבושת המאמינים בדבריו.@arso amazing can you translate it into English or you just say mashiach and decided it refers to chabad?
You are misnabe about moshiach the same way we are you say he’s not the rebbe.“I believe chabad is the penimius of yiddishkeit, as explained at length everywhere from Zohar to likutai sichos.״
That’s right (that you believe that) and it’s no different then people believing their מהלך is the best in yiddishkeit and Lubavitch is wrong because of xyz
Therefore what’s good for the goose is good for the gander
“the only difference is that by other sects of Jews if you don’t fit in, your kicked out, so satmer has no one not keeping all the takanos, or even the yeshivish where your not “kicked out” but anyone who went to bmg and left to work, he’s a Baal habas, so he’s not part of “yeshivish”“
The difference is, that a person wouldn’t call himself a satmar if he doesn’t follow the satmar rebbe, or someone that is a Baal habas would say he learns all day (I actually disagree, there are people that are yeshivish and still work but either way it’s because the person defines himself that way not vice versa) if someone doesn’t follow the Lubavitcher rebbe, he wouldn’t be considered Lubavitch
I had some time to look up the sicha about how we finished avodas habirurim. The rebbe brings from Torah or and toras chayim that already Yaakov avinu finished all the birurim, and was ready for the geulah,
so your kashe is why moshiach didn’t come then and it’s on Torah or and toras chayim and many other places.
The rebbe explaina there the difference between then and now see there.
Now Yaakov avinu after the thought he finished avodas habirurim he did the avoda of העלאת מ”נ see Torah or.Don’t ask kashas on anything before you learn the whole sugya!!!
Here we go with the deflection again – the reason why it’s not apikorsus to teach that, for instance, keeping shabbos is a bigger deal than coming late to davening, is because it’s true! But if someone were to say that coming late to davening doesn’t matter, when chazal say it does, then yes, that would be apikorsus too.
My assertion that shluchim say tznius isn’t so important is based on this thread and your statements that it’s not an ikkar. That explains what we see in crown heights whenever outsiders, “snags” like me drive through it and have to keep our eyes open so as to drive safely.
Tznius is the lifestyle of a Jewish woman. An illiterate woman who can’t pronounce tzimtzum but dresses tznius and behaves modestly is infinitely greater than a woman who studies seforim not intended for her but does not commit to serving Hashem by performing her essential mitzvah. Her studies are, in fact, harmful to her.
רמב״ם הלכות תשובה
שלשה הן הנקראים אפיקורסין. האומר שאין שם נבואה כלל ואין שם מדע שמגיע מהבורא ללב בני האדם. והמכחיש נבואתו של משה רבינו. והאומר שאין הבורא יודע מעשה בני האדם כל אחד משלשה אלו הן אפיקורוסים
I don’t see anything about something who says tznius is not an ikar.
Sechel, I’m sure you’d agree someone who’s a kofer in kabalah is a heretic, no? It’s not mentioned there either.
A more full quote:
שלשה הן הנקראים אפיקורסין. האומר שאין שם נבואה כלל ואין שם מדע שמגיע מהבורא ללב בני האדם. והמכחיש נבואתו של משה רבנו. והאומר שאין הבורא יודע מעשה בני האדם. כל אחד משלשה אלו הן אפיקורוסים. שלשה הן הכופרים בתורה. האומר שאין התורה מעם ה’ אפלו פסוק אחד אפלו תבה אחת אם אמר משה אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה. וכן הכופר בפרושה והוא תורה שבעל פה והמכחיש מגידיה כגון צדוק וביתוס. והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיא היתה מעם ה’ כגון ההגרים. כל אחד משלשה אלו כופר בתורה:
You don’t want to find yourself arguing against Chazal.
Christians say you can be a good jew without the mitzvos, because yushke “fulfilled” them.
Conservatives say you can be a good jew without most mitzvos, but you need to keep some.
Reform say you are a good jew no matter what you do as long as you pay your dues to Hadassah/JNF, vote Democrat and support LGBT.
Modern Orthodoz Jews say you’re a good jew as long as you do the above(without much LGBT, just a little bit) and you also need to keep shabbos and kashrus.
Chabad say you’re a good jew if you believe in their rebbe, and keep some mitzvos.
Torah Jews say you’re a good Jew if you keep ALL of the mitzvos to the best of your ability.
@avira I agree he’s a kofer like halevi quoted . Not because I decided. Not being carefull in a mitzvah at the most may make someone a מומר not an apikores, kofer, or min.
If you argue please bring a source. No I don’t agree with any of your ideas that you made up.Avira amazing lines ! If someone is a תינוק שנשבע he’s not a good jew? A mumar is not a good jew? You know you can eat the shchita of a mumar besides for certain aviros, you can wear tefillin he wrote. See sh”u y”d siman 2 and o”ch hilchos tefillin (25 I think) What’s that meant to mean not a good jew, and all the mitzvos to the best of your ability
The Gemara in kidushin says even a Jew who serves a”z is called the son of hashem and hashem loves him. So you can add by the end “Hashem says every jew is my son”Sechel, what did the child swear to? I think you’re referring to a תינוק שנשבה, a captured child. That’s spelled with a ה.
Whether or not all, most or even any secular Jews today are considered tinokos sh’nishbu is a a machlokes. Some say that most are – but that doesn’t mean that they’re good Jews. It means that they won’t burn for their sins.
Where in kiddushin does it say that a person who serves AZ is called a beloved son of Hashem?
A sinner who shechts does not usually render meat treif. Why is that a barometer for what makes a person good? That’s so arbitrary.
It’s a sad day when a person who claims to be a Torah jew can’t use Torah observance to determine what a good Torah jew is. The only issue is that it runs against the brainwashing in chabad.
I also never said that a sinner is an apikores. I said one who claims that a mitzvah isn’t important, or who dismisses chazal and says that what they say are ikkarim aren’t really that important – even if they themselves observe those laws – that’s apikorsus.
sechel to arso
amazing can you translate it into English or you just say mashiach and decided it refers to chabad?
You are misnabe about moshiach the same way we are you say he’s not the rebbe.
———
Arso – baruch shekivanti.
Already in the early nineties – before habads last u turn regarding mashiach min hachaim, , I connected This quote of sefer hasidim to the habad leader.When the habad rebbi was crowned as a navi [or rather he crowned himself as a navi], based on his [inaccurate] prediction that nothing bad will going to happen to all yoshvei EY during the gulf war, I was already wondering , what could bring a previously respected [albeit controversial] person to make such bizarre proclamations , which in case that they do not materialize, the proclaimant stays with permanent egg on their face , in the face of the whole world.
.
This sefer hasidim is one possible explanation for this phenomenon.
.@ sechel
Am still waiting for an answer …Tanya asks on his previous principle where he states a Jew [i.e. US] is meant to have also love and also hate towards a sinner. How does that fit with the pasuk of tahlit sin’a , where David hamelech is SHOWING US that the proper approach is hate only , without love.
To summarize , we have conflicting directives for US , is it love plus hate, or is it hate only ?
Answer of the Tanya is that it depends which type of sinner is it , the apikores type of sinner or the ma’amin type of sinner.
The apikores type the ‘only hate’ approach applies FOR US.
The ma’amin type of sinner ‘the ‘love-hate’ type approach applies FOR US.That is the pshat for any unbiased learner of Tanya . This is plain obvious.
If pshat would be like sechel and all other habad apologists who are biased against the pashute pshat, why doesn’t tanya answer the question by saying the pasuk is talking about david hamelech and not for us ??
Al korchach that both his previous principle AND this pasuk are meant to be taken as directives FOR US.
—–
An answer La’inyan please, to the point ….@sechel
“There was no mesorah to keep yidden away from haskala – before haskala appeared .
Simply because it did not exist.”
[yb to sechel]
—–
Besides for moshiach, that you need a mesorah, please explain why?
[sechel to yb]
——
Simple .
CS keeps on repeating on these pages that ‘Mashiach coca cola meshigaas’ whereby we are enjoined to search for the most ‘suitable mashiach candidate in our eyes’ and then popularize acceptance of the individual person who won the contest, as mashiach by the masses , is an age old custom practiced in many communities along the ages.Whereas in fact, these ideas are totally newfangled inventions by modern habad.
There is no source for those ideas in traditional judaism , nor were these ideas ever put in practice in any time in jewish history.We have a klal anyone who departs from mesorah should bring proof.
Please Do not sell us now your lokshen torah that your last rebbi IS mashiach , which is a riculous premise, to say the least.
.sechel: amazing can you translate it into English or you just say mashiach and decided it refers to chabad?
All of a sudden you can’t read Hebrew?! It says that if someone is misnabe about Mashiach it shows he was dealing with kishuf, shaidim or the Shem Hameforash (when he shouldn’t have, as we see from the end of the piece) etc. Does it explicity refer to Chabad? No. Does it clearly include Chabad? Well, was not the LR “misnabe” about Mashiach.
You are misnabe about moshiach the same way we are you say he’s not the rebbe.
(And he calls himself sechel 🙁 ) Are you for real?! Someone claims nevuah to say he’s Mashiach, and others reject him, so we are all the same?!
Do you Lubavichers go through a course which teaches you how to think crookedly? And if yes, did you end up summa cum laude?
sechel: Don’t ask kashas on anything before you learn the whole sugya!!!
Right. And your rebbe did learn the whole sugya, and understood it all based on Torah Or and Toras Chaim. Which explains fully why he said that avodas habirurim is finished and it makes no sense that Mashiach hasn’t come.
You can’t have it both ways! Either it makes sense, and the LR simply couldn’t understand it… resulting in him being mistaken. Or it doesn’t make sense, so don’t quote me Torah Or or Toras Chaim who say, according to you, that it does.
Avirah: My assertion that shluchim say tznius isn’t so important is based on this thread and your statements that it’s not an ikkar…
Sorry, but I don’t know why you are dealing with the assertions of shluchim. We have already learnt from CS that there is no vetting of shluchim, and they can therefore basically be am haratzim (I know a few – albeit not many – of those) and menuvalim (I know more than a few of those – seriously). So why is it surprising that they say things that we may consider apikorsus?
yankel berel, I am REALLY angry at you! If you knew this quote from Sefer Chassidim why didn’t you let us know about it? 🙂
Please don’t tell me you’ve got more ammunition that you’re keeping hidden!
I have always marveled at the way Lubavichers say, as sechel has, that all Jews are equal, and that there is no difference between a mechalel Shabbos and someone who keeps Shabbos, and the like.
And despite that, on Shabbos in Chabad houses they either use mevushal wine, or they cover the bottle in case someone who doesn’t keep Shabbos looks at it. Still, no difference between someone who keeps Shabbos or someone who doesn’t, is there?
And lets not forget how the shechita of many mumarim is kosher, yet Lubavichers only eat the shechita of other Lubavichers. (Actually, according to what we have been saying for the past months, in some cases that may indeed be shechitas mumar.)
Some Jews are more equal than others
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.