- This topic has 933 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY,
“If he is unaware of the Rambam (etc.), he’s guilty of am haaratzus”
Note, Rav Chaim Brisker’s rule that when it comes to the 13 Ikrim the Rambam’s shitah is :
“Nebech An Apikoras iz OIch An Apikoras” !
i.e. you can not claim “Am Haaratzos” when dealing with Yud Gimel Ikrim. (He brings proof from various Rambam’s.) Thus, it needs to be assessed if it falls into the above category.
“Looking at a Rebbe picture before daavening each morning add more chayis to your day and strengthens your yiddishkeit and chassiddishkeit”
770,
Your comments remind me of a beautiful nursery rhyme that chassidishe parents would sing to their children about their Rebbe:
“Er veist ven du shloft, er veist ven du vakst, er veist ven du bist shlecht oder gut, az zeinen gut!”
i.e. you can not claim “Am Haaratzos” when dealing with Yud Gimel Ikrim. (He brings proof from various Rambam’s.) Thus, it needs to be assessed if it falls into the above category.
Why would it?
Those who say the Lubavicher Rebbe is HKB”H (or some form of that) are of course apikorsim, but why would thinking he’s coming to life as moshiach be?
@Chabadshlucha
Thanks for answering my previous question. Here’s another one:
What happens when there’s a dispute within Chabad about how to interpret or apply one of the Rebbe’s teachings? How is the issue resolved?““So now davening b’zman, not eating before davening, sleeping in the succah etc. are mistaken behaviors which chassidus came to fix???”
That is not what I said.”
How not? Seems to be exactly what you said. He even copied and pasted.
If the point of Chassidus were to destroy minhag Ashkenaz and eventually minhag Sphard and convert everyone to invented, Chassidic minhagim, then yes I would have no problem saying that I am unequivocally opposed to Chassidus. BUT, today, Chabad is the only group that behaves that way.
That is not what I said.
So let’s accept for argument’s sake that that’s not what you meant. After all, it’s ridiculous.
So, what did you mean?
Once again CS replies in a manner so typical of lubavitch. She lists “all” the different types of arguments that have been levelled against her but she conveniently ommits the one argument that has been levelled by many of us to which there is no answer:
How is it logical to expect anyone to accept any hashkafo she cites when it is based only on the statements made about himself of the person who we are questioning/doubting/rejecting?
Could you please answer that. I believe we ALL want to know the answer.
And I’m still waiting to find out who wrote Sefer Hazikaron that you quoted a few days ago.
Finally someone mentioned above that “nossi hador” is mentioned in Tanya. I just did a BarIlan search for the word nossi and it didn’t come up at all. Where is it in Tanya? I’ll be happy to be told the source.
I quoted everything the poster wrote in order to indicate who I was replying to.
” BUT, today, Chabad is the only group that behaves that way.”
Which is exactly why I said I have nothing but pleasure from your opposition as it shows that Chabad have maintained the path of Chassidus despite hundreds of years of people like you attacking.
“So, what did you mean?”
I meant for example that there people are makpid to daven b’zman but not b’kava and b’toch koved rosh. That someone thinks rolling out of his bed into shachris and mumbling words for a short period of time is davening. That there are people who think the reason they were put in this world is to do mitzvos to get in to heaven. That there are people who are overly judgemental and scorn people who are not scholars. Etc.
There is a reason the Mussar movement existed shortly after. Chassidus came to correct real problems in the Jewish community, and those who opposed it eventually recognized those problems but had to come up with a new solution since they already made Chassidus out to be assur. And the same Tayneh’s you are saying about Chabad and chassidim in general were also made against the originators and original students of the mussar movement.
I do not think at any point that CS said she expects anyone to adopt her point of view. The focus of the thread was to answer questions. You asked questions, she answered them. The answer is that chassidim do what The Rebbe says. period. If you have a problem with The Rebbe that is between you and him.
Who cares?
I do not think at any point that CS said she expects anyone to adopt her point of view.
No, but I assume she wanted us to be able to understand it as a rational approach and accept it as such even if we don’t agree.
She has accomplished the opposite, for the simple reason that it’s not rational at all, and if anyone thought perhaps there was a logic behind it that simply escaped them, they’ve been disabused of that notion.
I meant for example that there people are makpid to daven b’zman but not b’kava and b’toch koved rosh. That someone thinks rolling out of his bed into shachris and mumbling words for a short period of time is davening. That there are people who think the reason they were put in this world is to do mitzvos to get in to heaven. That there are people who are overly judgemental and scorn people who are not scholars. Etc.
But how did you answer the taynas about halachic violations becoming acceptable?
Which halachic violations are acceptable?
No, but I assume she wanted us to be able to understand it as a rational approach and accept it as such even if we don’t agree.
She has accomplished the opposite, for the simple reason that it’s not rational at all, and if anyone thought perhaps there was a logic behind it that simply escaped them, they’ve been disabused of that notion.
Rationality and faith don’t mix.
5,
“And the same Tayneh’s you are saying about Chabad and chassidim in general were also made against the originators and original students of the mussar movement.”Which Taynes about Chabad are you referring to?
As a BTW – Do you think the original Heter Chassidim had on let’s say Zman Tfilah is still relevant today?
Generally speaking – I think not.
Note, I’m not speaking about a few Yichidum…“Rationality and faith don’t mix.”
David,
We are not speaking about “Rationality” from a secular or simple logic perspective – we are speaking in terms of within “religion” itself. There are boundaries the Torahs has setup how Rationality within can be defined.
Everything has a source in the Torah – Talmud, Rishonim, Achronim, Poskim, Kabalah etc.You can’t invent your own faith..
“BTW – Do you think the original Heter Chassidim had on let’s say Zman Tfilah is still relevant today?”
What was the original heter?
Gaon, as a side point, that’s not what Rav Chaim Brisker meant. Otherwise, Tzedukim who were never exposed to real Yiddishkeit would not be considered tinokos she’nishbu.
5ish, by the Mussar movement there were less alarming signs, and, consequently, they were never put in cherem, and to a small degree there were problems later (see “Emunah ve’Bitochon” by Chazon Ish).“As a BTW – Do you think the original Heter Chassidim had on let’s say Zman Tfilah is still relevant today?”
The reasoning for allowing davening later than zman tefillah is that in our time it is not possible to daven with the proper koved rosh and kavannah before zman tefillah, and that if one or the other has to be given up, it is better to give up the zman then to give up the quality of the tefillah, especially being that it is permissible to daven until chatzos, and hechsher mitzvah mitzvah, and other rationales.
If this was true at that time it certainly true now in an even greater way. But since I do not make up things for myself, the way that I, a Lubavitcher, knows that it is permissible is because The Rebbe says so, in addition to the fact that Lubavitcher Rabbonim say so, and my Mashpia says so, just the same was as anyone in any given community knows how and what to do based on a chain of tradition within their community.
Daas,
“Why would it?
Those who say the Lubavicher Rebbe is HKB”H (or some form of that) are of course apikorsim, but why would thinking he’s coming to life as moshiach be?”Agreed – if that is what it’s all about..
However, based on what is being said around here; there are many other fragments of new definitions and recreations on what is to be believed in terms of Moshiach and what in general is “Moshiach” and what it’s all about. Some of these insane definitions might touch upon the very Yesodos of Moshiach.
E.g. if one is to believe that ONLY and ONLY the Nasi Dor haShvii can be the long awaited Moshiach and nothing else can or will be Moshiach – יש לחקור – if the very Yesod Haikri has been infringed upon, as:
a) He/she has technically no Moshiach to believe in… b) The very essence of what is to be believed as Moshiach has been recreated to entirely something else.
I am not saying in a matter of Halacha O leMaaseh or concluding anything, My point is to make others aware that the concept of Moshiach shouldn’t be taken lightly as if you are just saying another Chidush…
Any opinions on the above?
Rso,
Your question really is not that spectacularly difficult to answer. As a matter of fact it doesn’t even get off the ground. I will explain why, listen (read) carefully.
If someone where to attack any of the basic yesodos of our emuna (let’s say an academic bible scholor attacks our belief that Torah is min HaShamayim). He would then challenge us to a debate on the condition that we cannot bring any Jewish sources to support our position. What would you think of his condition? Would you accept it? I hope you wouldn’t. It is not a reasonable stipulation. Our response (provided we where inclined to agree to such a debate) would be that any evidence to our position is acceptable provided that such a category of evidence is generally deemed reliable. The teaching of ones Rebbiem is a category of evidence generally deemed reliable in Klal Yisroel. So…
Unless you can show that:
1. There was a concensus of all (or most) of Gedolai Yisroel that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not to be relied uponOr
2. That she is misrepresenting what he said
You have no question.
CS and SH are you still intending to reply to the points I raised in my previous posts?
Why does Lubavitch make such a big deal from winning the machlokes with the Rebbe’s nephew and getting the seforim back in the library, that they’ve turned that day every year into an official Yom Tov? Isn’t it embarrassing to every year revive memories of an internal dispute?
Also, why does it seem that Lubavitch has had disputes with an unusually large number of other frum kehilos, both Chasidic and non-Chasidic (Satmar, Brisk?, Chaim Berlin, Ponovitch)?
On a lighter note, how can you tell the difference between a Lubavitcher’s hat and a Yeshivisher’s hat?
5ish, do you seriously believe that it’s impossible to daven properly before the z’man? It sounds very, very shver.
the rebbe CAN be moshiach. Its not definite that he is, but then theres no reason that he isnt. Moshiach can be from the dead so thats not an issue.
5ish, do you seriously believe that it’s impossible to daven properly before the z’man? It sounds very, very shver.
This, and also, what percentage of people who are davening after the zman actually use that extra time to prepare themselves?
I would bet that it’s a very small percentage.
I’ve heard of tzaddikim who davened Shachris even after Chatzos.
the rebbe CAN be moshiach. Its not definite that he is, but then theres no reason that he isnt. Moshiach can be from the dead so thats not an issue.
Oh. So what’s all this hock about?
“I’ve heard of tzaddikim who davened Shachris even after Chatzos.”
I’ve heard of people who redefine the work “tzadik” to include people to violate the halachah.
5ish: You realize that the poskim specifically addressed the issue of having to chose between kavanah and zman hatefillah. The halachah according to everyone was always that zman hatefillah takes precedence, until the Chassidim chose to ignore this.
For a lot of the year, zman hatefilla is as late at 11 o’clock. If you can’t focus by that point in the day, you need to see a doctor.
the rebbe CAN be moshiach. Its not definite that he is, but then theres no reason that he isnt. Moshiach can be from the dead so thats not an issue.
No, that’s not possible. The Rambam clearly says if he failed, it’s known that he’s not moshiach.
He failed. He’s not moshiach.
There are seven generations from the gra until moshiach,our times are ikvesa dmishicha.There are no more chasidim no more misnagdim just do teshuva and become briskers and moshe rabeinu halevi himself will take us out of golus
moshe rabeinu halevi himself will take us out of golus
Moshe Rabeinu is not a descendant of Dovid Hamelech.Non Political thanks for your (patronizing) attempt at answering my question. I listened (read) it carefully as you requested… and I reject it as irrelevant.
No one asked CS to justify why she believes whatever it is she believes. She believes it because she believes her rebbe expected her to believe that. What she was asked was to give a rational explanation of why she believes it, and that can’t be based on quoting the source saying the source is correct.
After you have listened (read) the above carefully I hope you’ll see the difference between someone challenging her to a debate and someone asking for a rational explanation.
A number of posters while arguing with CS and CH have said something along these lines: “We all agree that the Lubavitcher rebbe was a tzaddik/great man.”
I have no intention of arguing here agains his greatness but I do take issue with the blanket statement.
Virtually the entire Litvishe-Yeshivishe world thinks that he was most definitely not a great man. Then on the chassidishe side there are the many many thousands of Satmar chassidim and those other chassidic chatzeiros who are satellites of Satmar who think the same as the Litvishe-Yeshivishe.
Perhaps all those posting here think he was a great man but you can’t take that as a given by a long shot.
I have no intention of arguing here agains his greatness but I do take issue with the blanket statement.
Perhaps for the same reason you don’t wish to argue this out, others don’t wish to either.
I don’t think hashem needs help in determining who is and who isnt the moshiach. This stupid bickering isn t bringing him any closer. Give it up everyone and listen to the Rambam who said don’t spend to much time on this since it doesn’t lead to increased ahavas or yiras hashem. Clearly the only thing this thread has increased is some peoples blood pressure.
RSo: For what rational reason do you believe that Avraham Avinu existed, if your answer cannot be based on quoting the Torah as your source?
couldbe: That isn’t an accurate assertion. Many quotes were provided earlier in the thread of Litvishe-Yeshivishe gedolim saying the Lubavitcher Rebbe was a tzaddik/great man.
@RSO,
“Finally someone mentioned above that “nossi hador” is mentioned in Tanya. I just did a BarIlan search for the word nossi and it didn’t come up at all. Where is it in Tanya? I’ll be happy to be told the source.”
Tanya Perek Beis. Exact concept of Nosi HaDor without the name, “Nosi HaDor”.@NonPolitical,
I definitely am planning on answering, but anything longer than some copy pasting and typing a little takes time. And that’s time that I don’t have. I have a life and a lot to do outside of moonlighting on the Coffee Room:)Moshe rabeinu halevi himself take us out of golus as moshiach ,I guess there is a reason why you call yourself daas yachid you gotta get out there you don’t know everything Moses knows everything look for example ohr hachaim vayechi 49 11.The gedolim didn’t consider the Lubavitcher to be moshiach Moshiach is seven generations from the gra ,moshe rabeinu redeem us!
I guess there is a reason why you call yourself daas yachid you gotta get out there you don’t know everything
This is true, but there are several sources that Moshiach Ben Dovid will be a descendant of Dovid.
@RSO,
“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”
-Tanya Perek Beis
I hope this makes it clear that the Rebbe didn’t invent the concept of Nosi HaDor. Also as it’s known, Rebbe is Roshei Teivos “Rosh Bnei Yisrael”. Any Rebbe..
I’m not being a Lubavitch supremacist:)Did the Rebbe say the following…?
* A Rebbe is G-d in a body
* Lubavitchers (and only Lubavitchers) don’t have to sleep in a Sukkah
* The Alter Rebbe was on a higher level of Pnimuyus HaTorah than Rav Yochanan ben Zakai
* The Bais Hamikdash will not be built in Eretz Yisroel but in 770 and then transported to Eretz Yisroel, since 770 is “the place of Moshiach”
You are correct it’s moshiach Ben Dovid may he come speedily in our days.The gedolim guide us,not chabad chasidim on who’s qualified to be moshiach.Gedolim like the rebbes caliber
Md,
:Gaon, as a side point, that’s not what Rav Chaim Brisker meant. Otherwise, Tzedukim who were never exposed to real Yiddishkeit would not be considered tinokos she’nishbu.”
Sorry, but That is exactly his chidush in the very Rambams shitah where the wording of the Rambam in pirush hamishnayos on perek Chelek indicates so. The Rambam states after establishing the Yud Gimel Ikrim
Mוכאשר יאמין האדם אלה היסודות כלם, ונתבררה אמונתו בה”
“הוא נכנס בכלל ישראלWe see clearly from the very words of הוא נכנס that it’s a conditional matter of what makes and defines a Jew as a Jew. Ignorance is only applicable for all other mitzvos, but not for these. That is how Rav Chaim explains it. And that is the reason why the Rambam has 13 Ikrim and not 3 of 4 as others have, being that the above is applicable to all 13 .
However, you did raise a good point about the Halcha of Tinuk shenishba. On that, I heard that the Brisker Rav pointed out that in the old accurate prints of the Rambam at the Halcha of Tinuk shenishbu, the Rambam adds. I will quote (and it is printed in the updated rambams)
פ”ג מהל’ ממרים
ג2 אֲבָל בְּנֵי אוֹתָן הַטּוֹעִים וּבְנֵי בְּנֵיהֶם, שֶׁהִדִּיחוּ אוֹתָם אֲבוֹתָם וְנוֹלְדוּ בְּמִינוּת וְגִדְּלוּ אוֹתָם עָלָיו – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּתִינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִים וְגִדְּלוּהוּ הַגּוֹיִים עַל דָּתָם, שֶׁהוּא אָנוּס; וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁמַע אַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁהָיָה יְהוּדִי, וְרָאָה הַיְּהוּדִים וְדָתָם, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָנוּס, שֶׁהֲרֵי גִּדְּלוּהוּ עַל טָעוּתָם – כָּךְ אֵלּוּ הָאוֹחֲזִים בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁתָּעוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי לְהַחֲזִירָן בִּתְשׁוּבָה, וְלִמְשֹׁךְ אוֹתָן בְּדַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְאֵיתַן הַתּוֹרָה, וְלֹא יְמַהֵר אָדָם לְהָרְגָן.The last sentence “ולא ימהר אדם להרגן” was omitted from the semi old prints (for obvious reasons) which basically means that מעיקר הדין בעצם he has a status of a MIN ומרידין ולא מעליו however being that he is a תינוק שנשבה ראוי תחלה “להחזירו בתשובה”
Note, the Chazon Ish in YD however disagrees.
“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”Did you notice the לשון רבים there?
@Dos Yachid
You wrote: Did you notice the לשון רבים there?Did you notice the end of his post
Also as it’s known, Rebbe is Roshei Teivos “Rosh Bnei Yisrael”. Any Rebbe..
I’m not being a Lubavitch supremacist:)It is eminently reasonable to rely on your Rav. There is actually an issur of מהרהר אחר רבו.
If you are questioning the rationality or what CS believes your questio does not start for the above reason.
Are you questioning the status of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a reliable source? If so, please share your standard for establishing reliability?
Sorry for the patronizing tone in the previous post. It was uncalled for.
Gaon, as far as the Peirush Ha”Mishnayos goes, I have to look it up, but in the Yad he clearly does not go like that. He says that Tzedukim who have not been exposed to Yiddishkeit are anusim and tinokos she’nishbu. The ”ein lemaher lehargan” goes on those who were exposed to Yiddishkeit. And we follow the Yad over the Peirush Ha’Mishnayos. And this is how the Achronim learn it. Read the Rambam carefully, you’ll see it is meduyak be’lshono.
Did you notice the end of his post
Also as it’s known, Rebbe is Roshei Teivos “Rosh Bnei Yisrael”. Any Rebbe..
I’m not being a Lubavitch supremacist:)Yes. Cute.
The ”ein lemaher lehargan” goes on those who were exposed to Yiddishkeit.”
I will look it up again. However my point is in regards to how Rav Chaim learned it. Other Achronim do argue on his yesod so they might learn differently. I think there is a Mishnah leMelach in hilchos Halvaah with that girsa….
@Seichal Hayashar
I have no idea who u have been talking to about Reb Yoels beliefs but ur information is quite awful. There is a clear article after gimmel tammuz where Reb Yoel defends the Rebbe being moshiach as much as to say “bvadai” he will be moshiach. Nothing u say will change that fact. He has never said the Rebbe can’t be moshiach and that he doesn’t believe it. Not once. I know people who learned under reb Yoel and can tell u what he believes, and it’s that the Rebbe is moshiach. I mention that again because u had nothing to say to that last time. So too here, I’ve seen the video like 5 times. It’s very recent. Ur sources again are wrong, but cleave to them with more anger!
- The topic ‘Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha’ is closed to new replies.