Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher

To Menachem Shmei

1. The statement that no Jew is ever punished because every Jew has the din of a Tinok shenushba was told to me by several Chabad Rabbis.
2. On page 16 you stated that the Rebbe said he’s god clothed in human form. Is he the only person to reach that madregah. Sounds like a real Anav to say that about himself don’t you think?
3. Do you agree with cunin that the rebbe runs the world ie either as god or by telling god what to do?
4. Is the Rebbe alive or dead? Do I have to study Kabbalah seforim to get the answer?
5. You said that Avi Ezri changed Pshatim in Gemaras. Who was he and give me an example of a Pshat that he changed. In English please. Remember I’m ignorant.
To yankel berel
I assume you were complimenting me.

Menachem, I’m impressed with your ability to find sources for things. I still think there’s a difference between what one rav says 100 years after the baal hatanya, and what the consensus of gedolim were and are regarding the gaons treatment as a rishon in halacha. Do chabad yeshivos teach shu”a harav as a rishon? It’s fine with me if they do, but that’s not what the rest of the Torah world does in practice.

Someday, you can find sources for that sentiment in rabbi reuvein schmeltzers sefer on emunah(the English one), he has a whole section on how you can teach emunah to children through stories of gedolim, and spends a great deal of time on the gaon.

Re, the ramban and rambam, you’re referencing rav chaim volozhiner in the back of ruach chaim, where it says that some were saying that the gaon was on the same level as the rambam, and rav chaim said “definitely not the rambam, maybe like the rashba or the ramban.”

@menachem
R Chaim was not habad . In non habad context , you are right .
.
In habad context – reality proves you wrong .
.
This a unique habad phenomenon .
.
It is a pattern , obvious to all non partisan people .
.
As mentioned in previous posts , you are biased and therefore cannot sit in judgement on your own ‘father’ in this regard [even though you spent countless hours learning his words]
.
You cannot fathom [the obvious] that he would manipulate his hasidim to apply those concepts to him , himself .
.
Ki Ha Shochad Ye’aver ……

Menachem: “The Rebbe never said this about himself. The Rebbe said this about his father-in-law, the Rebbe Rayatz.”

I feel some sneaky backtracking here. He said it about the Rayatz and not about himself. So did he or did he not mean to imply it about himself? If yes, it’s as good as him saying it. And if not, who decided that he himself was Atzmus umehus melubash beguf? The chassidim? Can chassidim decide something so radical on their own without an explicit statement from the rebbe himself.

Wasn’t it R Yoel Kahn who said after 3 Tammuz that the mistake of the chassidim is that they decided the rebbe was Mashiach when he didn’t say so explicitly, even though it was the logical conclusion? I believe he said by way of illustration something along the lines that chassidim can’t come to the conclusion that 2 plus 2 equals 4 if the rebbe doesn’t say so.

@menachem
REALLY TO ALL

I took Menachems advice and was not relying on mere ‘hearsay’ as it was quoted to me by the habad hasid in EY [who claimed that there is a part of the sicha which is NOT PRINTED and only for PNIMI , only for habad consumption] but checked it out in torat menachem itself ,and want to share with the readership here the bottom line of the sicha

1] The chazon ish missed out on learning tanya

2] Therefore Chazon ish , now in olam ha’elyon , is jealous of a simple student of the habad yeshiva

3] The chazon Ish is standing now , begging to be let in to hear this simple student learning tanya, but he is refused entry and has to stay outside

4] seemingly there is no hope for him – ever,

but 5] after Thchiyat hametim when mashiach [! – guess who THAT is …] will teach the pnimiyut of the torah , then EVEN the chazon ish will be permitted to enter to hear and learn from mashiach [! – again ,guess who THAT is ….].

6] that is how the passuk ‘ki lo yidach mimemu kol nidach’ [which customarily is invoked as teaching that even the greatest sinner will merit olam haba] will be fulfilled …..
.

I will leave an empty space here for the reader to fully digest what was said here .
And to fully digest what the desired and obvious results of these words are ….

The Mishna Berurah consistently quotes rulings of the Shulchan Aruch Harav. He was gerechunt/considered from the Gedolei Ha’Achroinim. However, the M”B changed his name to the Shulchan Aruch HaGra”Z, not as he was known Harav.

I would ask the moderator to close this thread. We should be afraid, especially days before R”H of the horrible insults of a talmid chacham & a manhig in Klal Yisra’el. Delete those comments or the entire thread too. Thank you

To ARSo and mdd1

I don’t understand the reference to Yirmiyah please clarify.

yankelberel: “Mind you , the above sicha about the chazon ish was said on Purim 1956”

Ah! So it was a Purim Torah! Not a very funny one.

In light of the side discussion mentioning the greatness of the Baal Hatanya and his Shulchan Aruch, someone once asked me a question for which I have no answer.

How is it that the sefer is called Shulchan Aruch, which was the name of a sefer accepted by klal Yisrael 200-300 years earlier. The question isn’t how he could write his own set of halachos and pasken differently, there is no problem with that. But why was it given the exact same name as the original Shulchan Aruch?

It is time to rename Yeshiva World to Lubavitch World.

Menachem: “Again, imagine if Reb Chaim proved from a Gemara that “Talmidei Chachamim go straight to Olam Habah.
His talmidim will probably say, “Wow, our dear teacher, Reb Chaim, will go straight to Olam Habah!”
Here’s the question: Was Reb Chaim referring to himself in his statement?”

Better question: would they say that R Chaim was implying that he himself is a talmid chochom and will therefore go straight to Olam Haba? Simple answer: no! And the same is true with whatever imaginary conclusion you claim the chassidim of R Elimelech would come up with. They wouldn’t say that he MEANT himself even by implication.

Yet you yourself, and apparently all of Lubavich, claim that your rebbe WAS implying that he himself is the (non-existent) Nassi Hador, that he will be Mashiach, and that he is a Navi.

Sneaky and disingenuous once again. As I wrote in the past, you can’t have it both ways.

“I feel like I’m explaining a concept to a five year old.”

Yep, someone who understands pshuto shel Mikra and sees problems where they appear. This five year-old is not satisfied with your answers.

My last post to this thread:

I found a clear Nevuah! This conversation was predicted centuries ago.

וְחָכְמַת סוֹפְרִים תִּסְרַח, וְיִרְאֵי חֵטְא יִמָּאֲסוּ, וְהָאֱמֶת תְּהֵא נֶעְדֶּרֶת. נְעָרִים פְּנֵי זְקֵנִים יַלְבִּינוּ, זְקֵנִים יַעַמְדוּ מִפְּנֵי קְטַנִּים.

What does the word אֱמֶת in connection to a statement, generally mean in the Mishna?

One should care about what things mean and what is correct. Not which side said them, or what was he thinking when he said it.