- This topic has 854 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
CS: You don’t realize that a woman dressing non-tznius in public is far worse than someone else who sins in private? Like coffee addict pointed out, she is being חוטא ומחטיא while the other is just a חוטא. She is causing hundreds of people who see her, even inadvertently (let alone advertently) to sin every day. She will be punished for the thousands and thousands of other she caused to sin.
CS: “Similarly, throughout history, when communal standards fell in a certain area, even very important areas such as sota and murderers, the response was Sanhedrin shutting down, not executing however many Jews were unfortunately involved. Same with the Rambam I just mentioned.”
The Rambam writes that if a Beis Din needs to execute 100 people per day, they can and should do so.
Aveira,
“Gadol, it’s in a letter the Gaon wrote to his daughter”.
So it’s not brought down as Halacha in any of his writings. Please share the precise quote from the letter.
Modern “rabbis” like to say as a ln article of faith that “the obligation of shmiras aynayim is squarely on the shoulders of men” – they repeat it as if it were a pasuk. They say it the same way they repeat ad nauseum a line of “living a modern life within the framework of halacha.”
These are both meaningless sound bytes which have zero logic or mesorah. A 5th grader knows what lifnei iver is. The same 5th grader can read pele yoetz which writes that women take the first punishment if a man is nichshal by looking at them, if they are not dressed according to halacha.
It’s a powerful urge to justify pritzus that leads modern clergymen to spew that line; they will do anything and everything to not admit that their community has a serious problem.
But of course they have no problem chastising the frum for how we supposedly treat goyim and don’t serve in the Israeli army.
Dofi, it’s published as iggeres hagra. The lashon he writes is that his mother does not need his mussar because she is a tzenuah. In other versions of the letter the text spells out that tznius does for a woman what Torah does for a man, regarding fighting the yatzer hora.
It’s cited in basically every mussar sefer that is aimed at women, including rav shimshon pinkus.
The chazon ish learned Kabalah? Rav shach and reb aharon also?
They wrote seforim on it like niglah? Anyone saw them learn it? Or just your friend made it up?
I never heard of in chabad we do or do not “hold of the תפארת ישראל”
I thought that’s simple pshat in the Mishnah, you argued, so I brought the tiferes yisroel, maybe you bring me a proof that you should go after your logic and not your rebbe.
The Mishnah also says עשה לך רב
All chassidim held you need a rebbe to follow not to pick and choose whatever you want from each rebbe, cuz then your not following anyone. So it’s bologna to say “I’m heimish, I hold of everyone but I dont go to any rebbe or follow any rebbe)Just go to any Jewish cemetary. Many tombstones for women will list her first quality as having been a Tzanua.
Aveira,
In a letter written while traveling, the Vilna Gaon directed various members of his family to strengthen themselves in specific areas relevant to them individually. When his mother wondered why she wasn’t mentioned, the Gaon replied that her high level of tznius made such directives unnecessary. The letter did not state that “tznius does for a woman what Torah does for a man”, nor did he make this statement in any of his Halachic writings.
The gaon- tznius: maybe only the gaon held that way chassidim not! Btw Tanya says that תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם was only בזמן השס not today, today the ikar avoda is tzedaka
this tiferet yisrael is definitely not ‘simple pshat’ in a mishna.
It goes straight against the rama , shach and accepted halahik practice.Rama permits/ mandates to be holek in halaha on your rebbi [even rebbi muvhak – rov torato mimenu] if you have ra’yot.
Others even if it is only miSvara.
YD242:3Kol hameharhar ahar rabo [sanhedrin 110a] comes from the pasuk where yehudim falsely ascribed to Moshe rabenu [who provided ‘man from heaven’ as food for the dor hamidbar], that this ‘man’ has the non-existent attribute of blowing up inside one’s stomach. [rashi on humash]
In other words , making up non existing baloney as a negative for your rebbi, that falls under kol hameharhar ahar rabo.
That the rebbi made a mistake , that s not included in kol hameharhar , and is definitely possible, and is permitted to be said by the talmid. as per rama above.Kedai to keep in mind , however, that like the rebbi is liable to make a mistake , the talmid is even more so [kal vahomer]
Sechel, want to know what chasidim think of tznius? Ever walk around Williamsburg? Kiryas yoel? Skver? Tosh? Tznius is THE ikkar by them and they’re stricter than litvishe!
@sechel
Do you agree that ani maamin shezot hatorah lo teheh muhlefget , that the torah is nitschi ?Hope you do .
If so, how can you quote tanya that talmud torah keneged kulam does not apply nowadays ?
.I believe in Tanya it does indeed say that nowadays tzedokoh is more important than talmud Torah, and he explains his reasoning, but I can’t find it at the moment. Can someone please suppply an exact source?
I didn’t make it up, Tanya igeres hakodesh 9 quotes I from arizal. Why it’s not against nitzchiyus hatorah simply maybe cuz the rambam says that refers to halachos of Torah. See Mishnah Torah. Same way arizal and medrashim say that shakla vitarya of Torah will be batul לעתיד לבוא.
Thanks for the source, sechel. And that’s where he explains – at least the way I understand it – that the talmud Torah of the times of Chazal was on a completely different level because that was their main avodah. We, on the other hand, do not learn on that level, and therefore for us action – i.e. Tzedokoh – is more important.
@ sechel
Anyone understands the answer ?
Why is this not against nitshiyut hatorah ?
Sechel is not referring to yemot hamashiach , he is referring to us , now.
?Saying talmud torah kineged kulam dosent apply anymore is not changing any mitzvah, only talking about its level of importance. So its not a contradiction to nitzchiyus hatorah.
2) The ikar of Nitzchiyus hatorah applies even after moshiach comes and also techiyas hamasim. See nidah daf 61, rishnim there. (reb elchonon) and at length kuntres הלכות של תורה שבעל פה שאינן בטלין לעולם, and שיחת יום ב’ דחג השבועות תנש”א – בענין תורה חדשה מאיתי תצאI was just saying that it was mentioned that the gaon says that tznius is as important for women as torah is for men. Arizal argues that torah is not the main avoda. Chassidim who follow the arizal 1) dont follow the vilna gaon 2) dont hold the same about limud howrah as the people who follow the gaon as seen in tanya, and all over sifrai chassidus, the stress on davening, tzedaka, etc (like igeres 9) so you need another proof for chassidim about the “ikar” of tznius. The fact that satmer is very machmir more than litvaks very nice, it dosent make it the most important thing in yiddishkiet just like the fact they wear shtraimels dosent either, or the fact they dont vote or make sure to say tachnun on 5 iyar even if there is a bris.
דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה שהיא מצוה עומדת לעולם ולעולמי עולמים, אין לה לא שינוי ולא גרעון ולא תוספת, שנאמר: את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אותו תשמרון לעשות, לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו[2]. ונאמר: והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם, לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת[3]. הא למדת שכל דברי תורה מצווין אנו לעשותן עד עולם. וכן הוא אומר: חוקת עולם לדורותיכם[4]. ונאמר: לא בשמים היא[5], הא למדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ט, הלכה א
ועיקרי הדברים ככה הן: שהתורה הזאת אין חוקיה ומשפטיה משתנים לעולם ולעולמי עולמים, ואין מוסיפין עליהן ולא גורעין מהן. וכל המוסיף או גורע, או שגילה פנים בתורה והוציא הדברים של מצוות מפשוטן, הרי זה בוודאי רשע ואפיקורוס. הלכות מלכים ומלחמותיהם ומלך המשיח פרק יא, הלכה ג
ראה גם פי’ מראה הפנים לירושלמי שם: “אמתת הדבר כך הוא .. ליכא מידי דכתיבי בנביאים וכתובים ולא רמיזי באורייתא .. אלא שצריך בינה יתירה להוציא הרמז מן התורה ולידע ולהבין ולהשכיל המקום ההוא בהתורה שנרמז בה כל דבר מהכתובים .. וכל זה הוא עכשיו, אבל לעתיד דכתיב ומלאה הארץ דעה וגו’, ולא יצטרכו ללמוד זה מזה, כולם ידעו וישכילו לכל הנרמז בהתורה מהנביאים והכתובים כו'”.(this is one example that if you think over the question, my answer etc, you see how a bit more looking into the sugya you have your “shtarke kashe” answered)
@sechel .
In short your answer is-
that the principle of Nitzhiyut hatorah is not applicable to the ‘importance’ of mitzvot.Even when as a result of this ‘diminished importance’ , people will leave that previously important mitsva and do the previously less important mitsva.
Do you have a source for this claim ?
Arso’s answer is more understandable , but this is a big hidush – that talmud torah keneged kulam is only referring to t’t as practiced in time of hazal . But ‘second class’ t’t [even as practiced by people like arizal and Sh’a hrav !!] , we do not say the principle that t’t keneged kulam.
Would like to know whether there is source for this pshat too ?
yankel berel, I think that we would all agree that the Baal Hatanya was great and accepted enough that if he says something, even if it seems strange to us, we can accept it as being a correct shitah, even if it is not the shitah of others.
sechel: Saying talmud torah kineged kulam dosent apply anymore is not changing any mitzvah, only talking about its level of importance. So its not a contradiction to nitzchiyus hatorah.
That is untrue! If it says in Chazal תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם then that is as everlasting as anything else. That is why I suggested that the level of talmud Torah that Chazal was talking about – which was and IS everlasting – is not today’s level. Btw it’s only a suggestion, and maybe there’s a better answer (but I have no intention of looking in a Lubavich source of less than 100 years old to find that answer).
As to the tznius issue, sorry sechel, but you are totally wrong. Tznius is one of the MOST important mitzvos for women, and everyone except for MO and Lubavich seems to agree with that. It is certainly far more important than going on mivtzoim or learning chassidus.
@sechel
You still owe me an answer on this one ….
—————-
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.
—————————————-
Am still waiting …
.@arso
Agree with you about the greatness of the baal hatanya.
But still am lacking understanding in this particular point.Yankel berel. Open up a Tanya and read!
Need more mekoros, it’s a clear rambam inhilchos mamrim that sons of apikorsim these halachos don’t apply too. Also the chafetz chayim writes about this in אהבת חסד that it doesn’t apply to today’s apikorsim.
I’m getting mixed up with who wrote what but I find it really shocking that you accuse the arizal and the Baal hatanya of kefira. I guess now I realize who I’m dealing with, first I just thought you read some misquoted things in yated or bergers book, now I see you guys are real mosnagdim don’t accept the Baal hatanya of ari zal!
Arsos pshat in Tanya is simply crooked
How can the Gemara have a machlokes if מצוות בטילות the rambam clearly writes that mitzvos last FOREVER@sechel
Typical habad answer- again.
First attack and denigrate the questioner.
Then give a [non] answer.
—-
not even clear in your answer what you are referring to. The question about t’t keneged kulam ? which was Asked just now.Or the question about ahavat apikorsim tanya 32 . which was a while ago and is not on tanya but on neohabads compatibility with the brackets in tanya . Which was asked a while ago. There was an attempted answer from sechel with a following refutation from yb which was left unanswered by sechel.
Btw, no one accused tanya or arizal of kfira.
The only [wrongly] accused here which I can find , is yb. He is wrongly accused of saying that the bal hatanya is a kofer.
Question for sechel.
Sechel is very into ‘hate and love’ .
Nevertheless sechel is wrongly accusing yb of libeling the tanya.Is that a manifestation of ‘love’ towards yb ? Or the opposite ?
Sechel,
You know the rambam came after the Gemara right?
He paskens like the מאן דאמר the says they aren’t
@sechel
this is one example that if you think over the question, my answer etc, you see how a bit more looking into the sugya you have your “shtarke kashe” answered
—–
דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה שהיא מצוה עומדת לעולם ולעולמי עולמים, אין לה לא שינוי ולא גרעון ולא תוספת,
Thats the lashon harambam ,sechel is quoting.Three things can not happen to any mitsva of the torah
1] Shinuy
2] Gira’on
3] TosefetSechel agrees that ,at least still in the times of hazal,, the nature of the mitsva of Talmud Torah was shakul keneged all other mitsvot .
So Sechel agrees that this mitsve as it was given by HKBH to Moshe , WAS shakul keneged all other mitsvot .Sechel also says [and here he seems to be supported by the pashute pshat in tanya] that at a certain moment, there was a ‘change’ , and this mitsve ‘lost’ its privileged status , is ‘demoted’ and from now and onwards it is only a ‘regular’ mitsva , not shakul keneged all other mitsvot.
Sechel wants us to believe that this change and this demotion , is not included in the definition of Shinuy, nor the definition of gira’on.
Nu , Nu …..
@sechel
have a look in She’ilat Yavets end of Tshuva 5 where he brings numerous examples of people [who are wothy of hora’a] being holek on their rebbi -even muvhak.So i would suggest to CS not to tell her brothers yet that she is besting all those non habad people even though she never learnt in a yeshiva.
Same to sechel….CS, why does something need to be in older seforim for it to be valid? Chasidus isn’t in any sefer before 200 years ago. The peleh yoetz was before that.
Halichos bas yisroel is full of sources. Rabbi falk’s isnt – he was writing mainly as an instruction guide, and most women aren’t interested in looking things up. Most women just want to know what to do and what not to do and not he concerned with the sources or even the reasons. I learned this the hard way when i was in shidduchim and afterwards; a simple “yes” or “no” is usually what they want.
The kitzur was written only 130ish years ago. And it was definitely not written for women.
Plus, all jewish women were tznius in those days. You didn’t need halacha shailohs and minimum requirements, because everyone was covered up and no one would dare do otherwise. There was absolutely no “fashion” industry and women didn’t wear clothes that were, to use an expression which somehow became popular among frum women, “flattering.” Take a look at pictures of European and sefardi jewish towns. More tznius than satmar! It was the הלוך ילך, the רוח אפינו – some things are so plainly obvious, so fundamental, that any simple jew knows them. Even the amei haaretz in chazal aren’t criticized for dressing untzius.
You’re defending the indefensible.
And to the point of being machshil others, LH only is machshil others if they believe it, and it’s not something the person walks around doing nonstop. A woman who walks around untzius will be machshil men every second of her life and amass boatloads of sins that will not he attoned for by asking your rebbe for forgiveness or learning his musings.
“Now of course, learning enough Chassidus on the topic, elevates one to a place where they feel disdainful towards non Jewish fashion, and feel that tznius is the look they are proud to wear, and the other clothing cheapens women and isn’t beautiful at all:)”
Learning yiras shomayim does that too. If chasidus automatically did that for women, why would the community that has the most chasidus study also have one of if not the biggest problems with tznius in klal yisroel (aside from MO)?
Yankel berel. So you come up with an answer! Or you think you know better than arizal and alter rebbe? Btw your statement that the rambam paskens like one shita and after that the other is kfira, is 100% wrong. Learn the sugya!
According to your logic: the mitzvah of Talmud Torah changed, well tznius also did. Cuz the gra said it’s so important, so unless you find me an earlier source for that, he’s “changing” a mitzvah.Coffee addict,
“The lady is a חוטא ומחטיא the guy looking at things on his devices is just a חוטא”
This was addressed to Arso, but to your distinction, lashon hara is the same. And dishonesty in business. So why pick one Mitzvah one another?
CS: How is dishonesty in business חוטא ומחטיא? Regarding L”H, he might be מחטיא the person he’s telling the L”H to (if the person doesn’t stuff his ears), but a woman walking down Eastern Parkway the same way she goes for a swim, is being מחטיא hundreds and hundreds of people every single day, day after day. It is far worse, even simply in terms of quantity, and she will be punished for every one of those thousands upon thousands of people she caused to sin day after day for years and years.
> a woman walking down Eastern Parkway the same way she goes for a swim
I don’t know what is on your mind, but it is possible to swim in a burka. Just ask your wives.
For some reason a number of my posts – harmeless ones that would not have been edited – have been lost to the ether, and I don’t remember all I wrote. But one I do.
CS wrote: The Rebbe was quoting, in the very early years, at a small farbrengen, what a mashpia had said regarding the Chazon Ish, that even someone such as he, would be jealous in gan Eden of a little boy learning Chassidus…
This reminds me of another Chassidishe teaching that the loftiest Malach would give up everything for a single amen Yehei Shmei Rabba by a yid.(I have no idea whether or not the last statement is takke a chassidic teaching, but I’ll run with it anyway.) The two are not comparable. A Malach doesn’t have bechirah, and he is therefore perfect on his level. If he is (or in fact, can be) jealous of a Yid saying Yehei etc, it does not indicate any fault of his. The Chazon Ish, on the other hand, was a human, and if he would be jealous of something it would indicate that he did not do what he should have done, and therefore be a fault.
@sechel
hope you are more accurate in your learning and your medame milta lemilta than your accuracy in determining who you are talking to.First read.
Then stop.
Think .
Then answer.Shabat shalom
@sechel
According to your logic: the mitzvah of Talmud Torah changed, well tznius also did. Cuz the gra said it’s so important …. he’s “changing” a mitzvah.
[sechel to yb]
——————————————————–
Gra said tsniut IS AND WAS important .
Does that equal “change” or not ?
Obviously not.You , however ,are claiming that T’T WAS important and now it isn’t important.
Does that equal change or not ?
It does, For sure.Where is sechels basic logic ?
.
CS: My point was that the Alter Rebbe was referring to a small small sect of people, and even those don’t exist today, because the ones off, aren’t doing it because of their knowledge of Hashem and Yiddishkeit, but rather from their lack of it
Do you have a (non-Lubavich) source that makes this distinction? I know that the velt says in the name of R Chaim Brisker that nebech an apikorus is still an apikorus.
if you know aleph teach aleph
That’s a lovely concept… in theory. In practice, however, it is very dangerous! If someone only knows alef, when he/she tries to teach it to someone else, that person can very easily be influenced who has harmful hashkofos which the teacher does not necessarily know is harmful. That is clearly the reason for so many children of shluchim and other Lubavichers going OTD Rachmono litzlon. (You’re going to deny that the numbers are high, but they are certainly MUCH higher than the attrition in other groups of chareidim.)
Tznius is not its own Mitzvah doyraisa
??? Of course it is! Being machshil someone else is an issur d’Oiraisa!
“Al yemin shehu smol veal smol shehu yemin , the rashi you mentioned is speaking about sanhedrin hagadol in yerushalayim where it is indeed prohibited to argue against”
I don’t recall Rashi mentioning Sanhedrin, just quoting it in relation to our leaders. You’re welcome to correctThe passuk itself is talking about the Sanhedrin! Look it up in parshas Shoftim.
a soon to be giyores iyH who I had taught Chassidus on the basis of thinking she was Jewish, (I think I’ve heard Chassidus is ok to teach goyim too- they’re also obligated to believe in Hashem)
You THINK it’s ok? Is that mean to justify what you did, albeit unwittingly?
[the woman] told me that Chassidus had infected her so to speak- that when she is told about a mandatory class she needs to take for giyur and how it’s so amazing and deep, she’s found everything dry and basic (I’m talking hashkofa etc) after learning Chassidus
You know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when you bring an anecdotal proof from a shikse!
Being that that’s just #88 out of #200 complaints etc you’ll have, I don’t see the need [to provide a source]
Now that is certainly a winning reply to a challenge for you to back up some garbage you wrote!
CS: I believe the context was how could The Rebbe say we should demand Moshiach? Point here was the chofetz chaim uses the same word- and he didn’t say ask nicely.
I don’t clearly remember what the content of the complaint was then, but my complaint was and is that the LR said that what the RBSO is doing doesn’t make any sense. The Chofetz Chaim would never have said something like that.
Many women who don’t dress tznius do it because they struggle with the image tznius clothing gives off, and feel non tznius clothing looks better on them etc. …
I am broadminded enough to accept that people struggle with any mitzvah. But I am not broadminded enough to accept that women who do not dress tzniusdik can be shluchos. Nor am I broadminded enough to accept that non-tznius is de rigueur (please add that expression to the list of those that I only use in the Coffee Room) in Lubavich circles without the Rabbonim expressly issuing statements ‘demanding’ (as strongly as demanding Mashiach) that women shouldn’t be machshil the men who are innocently walking down the same street.
Now of course, learning enough Chassidus on the topic, elevates one to a place where they feel disdainful towards non Jewish fashion, and feel that tznius is the look they are proud to wear, and the other clothing cheapens women and isn’t beautiful at all
Not from what I and others have seen from Lubavich women. Don’t forget, it’s not only areas of the body that have to be covered, it’s the mode of dress as well. This, unfortunately, is a problem in a lot of MO circles as well.
If someone finds any part of hashkofa “dry,” it’s not because of actual chasidishe Torah. It’s because they’ve had sensory overload, like children who find books boring if they watch movies. So if they hear fanciful ideas which don’t really make them feel a need to, say, cover up, and then they learn basic hashkofa about prishus min haarayos, they might find it “dry.”
That’s just another reason not to learn kabalah until you’re ready for it. Even chasidim who say that regular jews can learn it through chasidus are referring to average Jews, like those of us here, who have a basic education. Not someone who has no idea how to read.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.