Hi I’m back 3.0

yankel > The navi [!] Shmuel was mistaken about Yishay’s sons

indeed, Shmuel was mistaken about his own sons … this episode actually bothers me. Anyone knows of a good explanation. Shmuel’s first nevuah is about telling Eli that Eli’s two sons are not proper and more bad news to tell Eli … That is how Shmuel becomes a leader – instead of them. Then, he raises two sons himself – and both are also not proper. Then, when frustrated Jews come and request a king (true, not wording their request properly) – Shmuel is all offended. But how is that Shmuel is not addressing his own failure – that is repeating Eli’s failure, so he was warned …

Tanya says that to decide whether someone is a tsadiq it depends on his temptations .
Menachem claims that there are ‘other’ ways to see whether he is a tsadiq .
Why does Tanya not mention those ‘other ways ?

I explained this to the best of my ability in the original post.

If I didn’t do a good job presenting the first twelve prokim of Tanya in two paragraphs, then go learn it *properly* in the original.

This entire premise is wrong. Chassidim trust the Rebbe simply because that’s how a devoted talmid relates to רבו המובהק.

Chassidim follow their rebbe with אמונת חכמים, they feel that כל המהרהר אחרי רבו כמהרהר אחרי השכינה, and they apply to their rebbe לא תסור ימין ושמאל.

———————————
1] How could the Baal HaTurim argue with his rabo muvhak, his own father , the leader of the entire generation , the ROSH ?
Numerous times ?

2] They ‘feel” that kol hame’harher ….. . Question was not about feelings. Feelings is not knowledge. How do they know – was the question.

3] Kol hameharher achar rabo ,,,, does not mean that every talmid is obligated to believe that his rabo muvhak is INFALLIBLE .
However that’s what Menachem is saying, in other words.

4] rabo muvhak is someone who is rov toratoh mimenu. I know many habad hasidim who the majority of their torah knowledge does not come from their rebbi.

%] Lo tasur is said about the bet din hagadol which was s

5] Using Menachems logic then , all talmidim of many litvish [and satmar to a certain degree] should blindly accept that the rebbi from habad was an apikores, a mashiach sheker , a tsioni and a megis libo behora’a ? Otherwise, they are included in kol hamehaher ?

@menachem

Isn’t all of klal yisrael talmidim of Shmuel hanavi and does the klal of kol hameharher achar rabo not apply to all of us, versus Shmuel Hanavi ?

So how could Shmu’el himself be MISTAKEN about yishays children ?

Was Shmuel INFALLIBLE ?

How should we . [I count myself as a hasid of shmuel hanavi – hope all other readers do too.]

How do we ,all of us , “hasidei shmuel hanavi” ,understand our rebbi’s mistake in knowing yishays sons ?

Dont we “feel” the kol hameharher feeling ?

Is there something wrong with our feelings here ?

Would suggest that davka those people who pride themselves in their ‘moach shalit al halev’ approach , should subjugate their feelings to the emet ? Or not ?

Yankel, maybe start a thread asking why so many litvishers obey “daas torah” unquestionably, and also attack others who dare to question the reasoning of any decision of “daas torah.”

(See other threads here for examples)

According to you Yankel, what’s the difference between a Lo Avado Beinoni and a Tzaddik?

If you don’t mind me sticking my nose in, the tzadik was born with a yetzer hora but killed it thorough his avodas Hashem.

If you don’t mind me sticking my nose in, the tzadik was born with a yetzer hora but killed it thorough his avodas Hashem.

DaasYochid, this is true.

But how is it killed through avodas Hashem? Because he brought himself to such a great level of devotion, love and connection with Hashem (which is only possible for someone who was born with a neshama that’s able to reach such levels of refinement) – that he lost all desire to go against Hashem by sinning (“yetzer harah”).

That’s why even according to Tanya, the main way of recognizing a tzaddik is a person who stands out in his holiness and devotion to Hashem. The temptation question is only an outcome of this general holy state, and probably not very recognizable to other people, as Yankel pointed out.

@menachem

1] “Standing out in does not necessarily guarantee that impostors or fakers are weeded out.
We do not have to go far back in history for an example.

Shabtai Tzvi was definitely “standing out in holiness and devotion to hashem”.
Otherwise he would not have been able to convince a whole array of first class rabbanim plus the majority of klal yisrael of his bonafides.

And yet notwithstanding all of the above, turned out to be a fraud.

2] Which , in turn, brings another unanswered question [yet] . Let’s say I would be a naive hasid/talmid/follower of Shabtai Tzvi, impressed by his devotion and holiness [plus any other title I could dream up] .

I would be convinced like Menachem stated before , of “kol hameharher achar rabo ke’ilu meharher achar hashechina”

I would be convinced or even better , I would FEEL , [like Menachem stated before], a blind trust in my rebbi who goes by the name of melech hamashiach shabtai tzvi.

Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .

At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?

Or do I still persist in my blind trust ?
After all doesnt it say Kol hameharher … ?
.

.

Yankel,

So you agree with me that there is such a thing as accepting a “daas torah” and obeying them unquestionably even when you don’t understand.

But your problem with Chabad is that you feel they’ve taken this too far.

Okay, well I disagree. I think the Rebbe is a great daas torah to be bottul to, so I am. That’s our disagreement.

Menachem craft fully sidestepped each and everyone of the Questions asked.
WHY ?

Either you’re bad at asking questions or I’m bad at answering them.

Menachem craft fully sidestepped each and everyone of the Questions asked.
WHY ?
[yb to menachem]

Either you’re bad at asking questions or I’m bad at answering them.
[menachem to yb]
—————

Nu , is menachem sidestepping or not ?

Menachem does have a point, just ask tzadok and beisus, their rebbe said “אל תהיו כעבדים…” and they obeyed their rebbe without asking any questions

Was the problem that they misunderstood their rebbe’s statement or that they obeyed their rebbe?

Were they meant to say “Our rebbe is not infallible, he must have been wrong in saying אל תהיו כעבדים” – as you seem to be implying in this discussion about Chabad?

If the latter were true (ch”v), why do we still teach Antignos’s statement in Pirkei Avos?

Menachem > So you agree with me that there is such a thing as accepting a “daas torah” and obeying them unquestionably even when you don’t understand.

acculturation. daas torah did not exist in Litvishe pre-WW2 community – but chassidishe rebbes already existed. Now, with so many people streaming to learn from litvishe yeshivas, the inmates gradually took over the asylum.

@menachem

Let’s say I would be a naive hasid/talmid/follower of Shabtai Tzvi, impressed by his devotion and holiness [plus any other title I could dream up] .

I would be convinced like Menachem stated before , of “kol hameharher achar rabo ke’ilu meharher achar hashechina”

I would be convinced or even better , I would FEEL , [like Menachem stated before], a blind trust in my rebbi who goes by the name of melech hamashiach shabtai tzvi.

Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .

At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?

Or do I still persist in my blind trust ?
After all doesnt it say Kol hameharher … ?

@menachem
I did not merit to your pearls of wisdom on the following.

You said that habad trusts their rebbi not to make mistakes because of ‘kol hameharher … ‘

How could Shmuel hanavi be mistaken about yishays sons ?

Is that not a contradiction to your understanding of ‘kol hameharher ‘ ?
If not , Why not ?
.

How could Shmuel hanavi be mistaken about yishays sons ?

This proves my point. Since we saw that Shmuel “made a mistake” – does that mean that now we must take any statement of Shmuel with a “grain of salt” ch”v?

After all, according to your logic, if Shmuel could “make a mistake” about Yishai’s sons, then maybe the whole anointing Dovid as king was one big “mistake” (ch”v)?

Kol hameharher achar rabo ,,,, does that mean that every talmid is obligated to believe that his rabo muvhak is INFALLIBLE ?

I have no idea. You keep turning this into a deep philosophical question.

I am answering your question about the metzius: Why do Lubavitchers follow the Rebbe? Not because they proved he is tzaddik of Tanya, or because of a philosophy about infalliblity. Rather, as talmidim following and obeying their rebbe.

If you hold that כל המהרהר or לא תסור doesn’t apply here, that suits you. I’m not here to debate the halachic implications of those terms.

If you don’t like the idea of students just following what their teacher tells them even when they don’t fully have proof for what he said, then start a thread against the litvishers in the CR who demand that everyone unquestionably accept their “daas torah.”

You keep bringing up Shmuel Hanovi. I haven’t seen anywhere that Dovid was meant to doubt every instruction he got from Shmuel because based on the earlier incident he proved that he isn’t “infallible.”

FYI – Sanhedrin 93 brings a test for a potential moschaich – find out who is guilty and who is not without using DNA analysis. Take it from here.

Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.

Maybe it depends what level one is on. For example, a rishon can’t say that the Gemara made a mistake, etc.

The derech in Chabad is that a rebbe can teach differently than a different rebbe, but a chossid doesn’t see himself on the level of “holding differently” than his rebbe.

He can ask questions on what the Rebbe said, but only in way of “I don’t understand, please explain,” not in a way of “what my rebbe said doesn’t make any sense, I disagree.”

This is also the style in maamarim, always using an approach of WE must understand, לכאורה צריך להבין.

This is our derech. If you think it’s wrong, okay.

I don’t think I have anything more to answer you. More than what I wrote here I don’t know.

Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.
[yb to menachem]
—-
Maybe it depends what level one is on. For example, a rishon can’t say that the Gemara made a mistake, etc
[menachem to yb]
———————————————————————————————–

You bring up an important point here.

Depends what level you are on.
Someone who is higi’a le’hora’a , can/should /has a hiyuv to argue. Someone who is lo hig’ia cannot.

On top of that – there is a klal yisrael wide acceptance not to argue on hahamim of a different era.

What constitutes a different era and what not , and this whole acceptance in itself, is some of the pla’im of the bri’a , where hahmei yisrael collectively , but still each one separately, arrive at the same conclusion , [as if] directed from above .

Thats why tannaim are not argued on by amora’im . Amoraim not by rishonim and aharonim do not argue on rishonim.

But within those eras , arguments are not only tolerated, they are to be ENCOURAGED.
R Moshe writes in his igrot moshe , that there is an OBLIGATION for someone higi’a lehora’a to state his opinion fearlessly, even if someone bigger is arguing .

R Shlome Zalman writes in a k’tav haskama/hasmacha to his own talmid the following- has veshalom that you should be hesitant to argue on my psak !
In any case where your own limud ‘s conclusions are not like mine , YOU ARE OBLIGATED to state this berabim .

Thats the fulfillment of lo taguru mipnei ish.

—–

In the case of habad this has been FORCEFULLY SUPPRESSED .
Remember the case of the mehaber of Ashkavte debei rebbi , a noted talmid haham and marbits torah in yeshivat torah vadaat, and aclose talmid of the Rashab, who definitely was higi’a lehora’a , who disagreed with the rebbi of the habad hasidim re whether al pi hahalach a certain mizrachi public figure was meant to be put in herem .

He was murdered in his own home as a result of this disagreement.

Inadvertently maybe , by some of the brainwashed people . Or brainless people . Whatever you want to call them.

Brainwashed that dissent is not to be tolerated .
—
In habad – you will notice – no talmid haham is afforded any title. Its THE REBBE , and moshe feinstain and yoel kahen, ashkenazi etc.

Again the same pattern . no dissent.

—-
Mistaken belief in Infallibility of their rebbe is either the result of this brainwash , or the intention of this brainwash.

OR BOTH.
—-

Take away this belief in his infallibility [which incidentally has no base in yahadut].

And the whole mashiach house of cards collapses.

—
A habad hasid should be able to learn from him , all the things which will inspire him, elevate him.

Just that subsequent events and simple logic have proven the rebbi of the habadi’s MISTAKEN in this one issue. In the mashiach issue.
—–

Thats why getting through on this issue whether their rebbi was or was not infallible is SO IMPORTANT.

—
I suspect that menachems and the other habad apologists clear reluctance to face this issue head on , is for the same reason.

Because this underpins THEIR WHOLE MASHIACH THEOLOGY.

Nafal hayesod , nafal habinyan.

@coffee addict
Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .
At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?
[yb to menachem]

When he blatantly rejects Torah, as Shabtai Tzevi, r”l.
[menachem to yb]
=====================

Interesting .
Shabtai tzevi’s first ‘blatant rejection of the torah’ menachem’s words …. was not in 1666, when he officially became a Muslim.
It started a few decades before that, when he repeatedly was “hoge et hashem be’otiyototav” he pronounced HKBH’s Name , against halacha.

and followed by bizuy talmidei hahamim , hillul shabbat , eating helev, hakravat kodshim betum’a and huts lebeit hamikdash , false prophesies ,etc.
Replete with special brahot of matir isurim and special kabbalistic pilpulim to ‘explain’ them.

NEVERTHELESS , ALL THESE “BLATANT REJECTIONS” DID NOT STOP MOST OF KLAL YISRAEL FROM BLINDLY FOLLOWING HIM.

Why not ?

Because of “Menachem-type-of-reasoning.”

Kol hameharher …..
Lo tasur …..

Coupled with forceful suppression of internal dissent.
Anyone who dissented or merely was suspected of dissent ,was made to pay a very heavy price….

If that sounds familiar , the reason might be that …

it really is familiar ….
.

Like by paskening that one doesn’t have to sleep in the sukkah anymore?

You’re likely referring to the minhag of the Chabad rabbeim and many Chabad chassidim to not sleep in the Sukkah, as they were instructed by the Mitteler Rebbe in the lifetime of the Baal HaTanya (although the Rebbe instructed those who do sleep in the Sukkah not to change their minhag).

Of course, this minhag came years after the Shulchan Aruch already paskened that the current minhag of most Jews is to be meikel and not sleep in the Sukkah.

Now Coffee, please start a thread about the non Chabad chassidim who have abolished the chiyuv d’rabanan of eating in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (yes, we keep sefeika d’yoma).

This minhag has no basis in Shulchan Aruch, unlike the minhag of sleeping outside the Sukkah which was already mentioned by the Rama.

I’m waiting for your thread…

@CS
You said “ What I asked you to clarify, based on the above, is how does what you do = what all frum Jews do.”

Ok here’s some contemporary and ancient examples to refute this confusion:

Kalev at the Avos

Mamme Rachel when the Yidden went into Golus”
If it’s clearly done i in the past by klal Yisroel, why did the rebbe have to explain that is mutar to ‘beten’ a rebbe. He didn’t even mention these historical cases, but says the rebbe is “ Atzmus umehois …” Why does he use that answer- he can just point to these stories! Unless you are suggesting that klal yisroel and kolev acted improperly?

Can you please answer these 4 questions ONLY with a yes or no, and without witty comments
1. Is the rebbe alive
2. Does the rebbe run this world
3. Do you ask the rebbe to change things for you (ie. Heal medical issues etc.)
4. Are your answers to these questions mainstream chabad belief?

Sorry I just read your previous thread, if we do hold ספיקא דיומא so why do chassidim gebrokt (not sure what Chabad does) on the last day of pesach?

If that sounds familiar , the reason might be that …
it really is familiar ….

It does sound familiar. It sounds like this post:
“First of all, Mr. Simcha613, you should show a little more respect to our Gedolei hador. Has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe the Gedolim thought of your Genius question and decided to do what they did anyway….??? Unfortunately, like many in our impoverished generation you clearly don’t get the concept of Daas Torah.”

And no, it was not written by a Lubavitcher.