- This topic has 2,052 replies, 68 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Username, any thoughts on my rant? I want to see where mainstream Chabad stands.
If someone will sleep, it’s a chiyuv to do so in the sukkah.
You and rso repeat this position again and again. Can you source that the Petur of Tashvu KeEin Taduru only applies when you can’t eat/drink/sleep? For example. I can sleep in a cold Sukkah, but it’s just a lot of work to move blankets outside. Or someone who’s scared that he’ll be robbed. Can you show me where it says that you have to be that scared that you won’t be able to fall asleep from fear? Or where does it say that it has to be that cold that you won’t be able to fall asleep? Or that if I’m two hours away from a Sukkah, I have to drive there and can’t eat outside because I can hypothetically eat in a Sukkah?
The R’ma is specifically talking about when/where it’s cold,
I found this sefer, where it says that the custom in Egypt was to be lenient about sleeping in a Sukkah, because the air is foul and there’s a concern that he may get cold.
I looked up the average weather in Cairo in September is 72 and in October is 67 degrees Fahrenheit. Bnei Brak’s (October) average is also 67, Tuscon (ditto) is 59, Phoenix is 66, Melbourne is 46, Cape Town is 53, Miami is the only major Jewish community which is an outlier, is on average 74. And I’m not counting Montreal, Chicago, New York, or Toronto since those are quite obviously way colder than Egypt.
If Egypt is cold enough that the general custom wasn’t to sleep in a Sukkah, can you name me where it isn’t?
And the reason of having tzaar because you’re not having tzaar is not considered valid by anyone who is not a brainwashed lubavicher.
It’s a Leshitascha. You (and DY, NCB) believe that the Frierdiker Rebbe wrote fiction. So the quote Beshem the Mitteler Rebbe (“How can one sleep in Makifin DeBina?”) was fiction. If it’s fiction, than any Tzaar we have from that quote is fictional, and fictional Tzaar doesn’t Patur you from the Sukkah. Although you haven’t sourced that fictional Tzaar doesn’t Patur you from a Sukkah either, btw. The only thing you said was that it was wrong for the Rabbeim to give us this Tzaar.
But Lubavitchers (and the Lubavitcher Rebbe) didn’t believe that the Frierdiker Rebbe’s writing fiction. So this quote was actually said by the Mitteler Rebbe, and there is an inyan not to sleep in a Sukkah if you:
1. Aren’t on a holy enough level to be in control of yourself in your sleep and,
2. You realize the holiness of a Sukkah.So according to us, it’s quite a reasonable psychological tzaar (The Sukkah itself makes us feeling guilty when we sleep there). And I’m still waiting for a source that psychological Tzaar doesn’t count.
“Also, Chabad weren’t the only ones not to sleep in the Sukkah, neither did Belz before the war. In a shmuess between Rav Shterenbuch of Antverpenn and the Satmar Rebbe of KJ, the latter says: “In Dzhikov one did not sleep in the Sukkah. If somebody happened to doze off in the Sukkah he would be awakened, so that he not transgress… They would wake him by saying: “Nu, Sukkah…”
But of course, if they aren’t Lubavitch, their Minhag doesn’t bother anyone…”
I wrote this 10 days ago, and it seems to just prove what I said about non Lubavitch minhagim not bothering anyone, it was barely noticed. From the above quote from the Satmar Rebbe, we see very clearly how the Dzhikov Chassidim very very makpid to sleep out of the Sukkah, Ad Kdei Kach that one was woken up if he fell asleep in the Sukkah. Clearly, there’s more at play in their Minhag than Tzaar of cold etc, and very possibly they had the same reason as Lubavitch does.
“When it’s raining outside to you eat and sleep in the sukkah or you go inside? I don’t know, but guessing that you go inside and rely on the retroactive hetter, even though the Rama says we should be machmir.”
The Rema says the exact opposite of what your claiming he does in siman 639. I’m not sure if you’re lying on purpose or by accident. The only thing he says that you could even somewhat twist into claiming he agrees with you is with regards to the first night of Sukkos where you have to eat a kazayis even in the rain without a lesheiv b’sukkah. Even that’s just a hachraah minhag as there are rishonim who hold you would be patur on the first night as well, so for someone to go inside even on the first night would not be mevatel a mitzvah, unlike the case of not sleeping in the sukkah when you would be perfectly able.
It’s a straight Mishnah not to eat in the Sukkah in the rain (I assume you didn’t know this since you called it a retroactive heter). I have no clue what Chabad’s heter is to argue on the Mishnah here.
Username: You can’t start bringing proofs down from poskim who talk about the cold when that’s never been your argument. Nobody is disputing that heter. What people are disputing is your habit of speaking of a heter as though it’s a chumrah to imply that those keeping the mitzvah are doing a bad thing.
I don’t know where this persecution fantasy you guys have is coming from. Nobody has said we would be OK with non-Lubavitchers having this custom. I would be just as critical of any other group for having this shittah. Chabad happens to be the ones still doing it and talking about it.
“But of course, if they aren’t Lubavitch, their Minhag doesn’t bother anyone…”
I wrote this 10 days ago, and it seems to just prove what I said about non Lubavitch minhagim not bothering anyone, it was barely noticed.”Oh chill! You have to stop jumping down people’s throats and calling them anti Chabad based on your assumptions! There are at least two reasons that I can think of for “not noticing” your comment and I’m not even a part of the halachic discussion.
1) the minhag of others who do this WAS addressed at least twice
2) THAT WASN’T WHAT THE TAYNA WAS ABOUT!! It was stated over and over (and over, but maybe you don’t bother noticing valid non Chabad points) that the problem was the hindsight heter for an issur. Maybe people get tired of having valid responses ignored (yes, you have done that as well) and taynas creatively reworded so they just didn’t bother responding this time.
You cant use “anti Chabad” as your excuse to not being patient, attentive or willing.
sheesh.Rso let me ask you a simple question.
If the rabbeim (and chassidim) wore makpid ad kedei chach, to not even drink a little sip of water outside the sukkah even if it raining, and even on shmini atzeres, why wouldn’t they be makpid on sleeping in the sukkah?
Do you have any explanation or just going to call everything fiction, and being brainwashed?
(Btw it seems like you are calling even the Rebbe brainwashed cv”s, I find it t pretty surprising.)Chossid – It’s pashut! In Russia and Lithuania , it was freeeeeeeeeeeeeezing. SO it was sakanas nefashois not to sleep in the sukkah. Even if one were to eat there in the rain becuase of kabbala, it still way easier and safer than sleeping there! No one said to give up your life for it! Not even a Rebbe would do that,
BTW, this that chabad eats in the sukkah in the rain with a bracha, but doesn’t sleep in the sukkah even in hawaii, is a great raya to “Baal toisef, shema ba letegra.” Because it was decided al pi kabala to eat in the rain, it was decided al pi kabala to sleep inside, even in comfort.
“If the rabbeim (and chassidim) wore makpid ad kedei chach, to not even drink a little sip of water outside the sukkah even if it raining, and even on shmini atzeres, why wouldn’t they be makpid on sleeping in the sukkah?”
I’m confused, are you switching to our side on the sleeping in the Sukkah issue now? I’ve read your question several times, and it seems like you’re making exactly our point. By the way, non-Chabad Chassidim don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, just “fact-checking.”
Sechel HaYashar,
“But of course, if they aren’t Lubavitch, their Minhag doesn’t bother anyone…”
The people from Dzhikov aren’t here on the CR trying to convert the nebach non-Dzhikovians. If they were, you bet they’d be asked about it.
Even the first day once he ate a kezayis he doesn’t have to sleep in the sukkah once he is metzaar because it is cold.
usernme: “IF SOMEONE WILL SLEEP, IT’S A CHIYUV TO DO SO IN THE SUKKAH.
You and rso repeat this position again and again. Can you source that the Petur of Tashvu KeEin Taduru only applies when you can’t eat/drink/sleep?”No. It applies when under the same circumstances you would leave your home to sleep somewhere else. If it was raining in your dining room to the extent taht you would find somewhere else to eat, than that amount of rain exempts you from eating in a sukkah. That’s teishvu k’ein toduru. Similarly, if it was too hard for you to sleep in your bedroom for whatever reason, and you would look for somewhere else to sleep, you are exempt from sleeping in the sukkah.
But you are not exempt from eating or sleeping in the sukkah if the you find the fact that you CAN eat or sleep in the sukkah disturbing. This is a baseless invention of your rebbe to justify a minhag which was unknown before the Rayatz said it. (I personally knew old lubavicher chassidim who used to sleep in the sukkah in Europe before they heard about this “old” minhag.)
I am sick of replying to this sub-topic because I say the same thing each time, and you don’t address it. So one last time (if I can control myself in the future, and I am pleased to say that I have some measure of self-control as can be attested to by the fact that I didn’t get as involved as I could have in the topic of your rebbe’s rebbetzin): you will NOT find any chareidi rov who is not a lubavicher or a lubavicher sympathizer (e.g. he wears a shtreimel and has his own shul somewhere but is considered a closet lubavicher by lubavichers) who agrees with the sevoro that the fact that you don’t have tzaar can be called mitzta’er and patter you from a sukkah.
If I’m wrong, give me the name of the rov and quote what he says.
username: “It’s a Leshitascha. You (and DY, NCB) believe that the Frierdiker Rebbe wrote fiction. So the quote Beshem the Mitteler Rebbe (“How can one sleep in Makifin DeBina?”) was fiction. If it’s fiction, than any Tzaar we have from that quote is fictional, and fictional Tzaar doesn’t Patur you from the Sukkah. Although you haven’t sourced that fictional Tzaar doesn’t Patur you from a Sukkah either, btw.”
As far as I recall I was the only one who wrote that the Rayatz wrote fiction, and I stand by that. But none of that is relevant to what you write in the subsequent sentences. Making my and others’ tainos and kashes look ridiculous doesn’t answer the problem at all. It just proves that you don’t have what to answer.
I wrote that I wasn’t going to comment further on the sukkah matter, but as Chossid asked me a direct question, I will reply to it.
“Rso let me ask you a simple question.
If the rabbeim (and chassidim) wore makpid ad kedei chach, to not even drink a little sip of water outside the sukkah even if it raining, and even on shmini atzeres, why wouldn’t they be makpid on sleeping in the sukkah?”As I wrote a number of times, and as Syag wrote so clearly in a post just before yours, I have no problem with the minhag, and that is why I’d not fussed with what did or did not happen in Dzikov. I have a problem ONLY with the attempt at rationalization that simply does not hold water.
Yeshivishrockstar
“And in other places he says Kaviyachol. This is not meant to be taken literally, and is kefira if it is. We do not have GOD in us, we have GODLINESS. Big difference – and is the difference between yiddishkeit and kefira. A mistake in this is a mistake in yichud Hashem!!!!”
Are saying that what what the Bal hatanya says in Tanya that נפש בשנית בישראל היא חלק אלקה ממעל משש is kefirah and making a mistake in yechud Hashem?
Just need some clarification.“And in other places he says Kaviyachol. This is not meant to be taken literally, and is kefira if it is. We do not have GOD in us, we have GODLINESS. Big difference – and is the difference between yiddishkeit and kefira. A mistake in this is a mistake in yichud Hashem!!!!”
Are saying that what what the Bal hatanya says in Tanya that נפש בשנית בישראל היא חלק אלקה ממעל משש is kefirah and making a mistake in yechud Hashem?
Just need some clarification.
Chossid, that is an old machlokes. Many hold the Alter rebbe says outright kefira. People try and say its not literal but unlikely, he says mamash. You guys may just but heads here for nothing.DaasYochid ☕
“1) If someone will sleep, it’s a chiyuv to do so in the sukkah.
The Lubavicher “minhag” is to sleep outside of the sukkah.”Exactly. (Unless he has a hetter). And it was the Ramas minhag too.
You missed my point.
What I’m trying to bring out (from the Gemorah) is, that by not sleeping in the sukkah, is not being mevatel a deorysa, because he fulfilled the mitzvah of תשבו by eating in the sukkah. Sleeping is only a separate פרט in the תשבו. Therefore the chachomim weren’t being mevatel a deorysa, by not sleeping. But yes if you are going to sleep there is a chiyuv to do so if you don’t have a hetter.I will bring out the point with an example regarding the first night.
If it’s raining or it’s very cold, you still have a chiyuv (deorysa) to eat (at least) a kezayes in the sukkah, because if not, you will be mevatel a deorysa. But do you have to sleep in the sukkah that first night in the rain? I don’t think so (I’m not 100%) Because you wore already mekayem the chiyuyof תשבו by eating there.So we see from here, that not sleeping is not being mevatel a deorysa, the only thing that there is, is a chiyuv, if you don’t have a hetter.
“2) The R’ma is specifically talking about when/where it’s cold, or married men.
Ie. TzarLubavicher bochurim sleep in the house even when it’s nice outside.”
With a hetter,
Just there is room for debate what’s considered tzar. But it’s not being mevatel a deorysa.Rso:
““Retroactive heter”?! There is no retroactive heter if it’s raining and the rain ruins your food or disturbs your sleep. It is a halocho paskened openly by ALL poskim. The only “retroactive heter” is not sleeping in a sukkah when the weather and other physical considerations do not disturb, and that is where the Rema says that it appears to him that the reason people don’t sleep in a sukkah is…
That is a “retroactive heter”.”Ok just instead of “raining” it’s very cold and you can’t sleep properly.
My point is, why are you ok (like you said) with just relying on a minheg without a reason for it, If we see from the Rama that he doesn’t leave his minheg just like that, rather he justifies it with a reasoning why you can be maikul.The only thing I could understand from you is, why is the reasoning valid.
but is not a problem to justifying it.
That’s all what I was trying to say. I just wasn’t clear.“Because they wouldn’t have gone home to sleep if there was Simchas Beis Hasho’eiva any other time of the year either. That is the rule of תשבו געין תדורו. For the same reason someone who is traveling is not obligated to sleep in a sukkah.”
See what I wrote earlier to dassyochid.
Rso
“Did he really say that?! So he just ignores Rav Shulchon Oruch 5639 se’ifim 4 and 8?!
How far are you people allowed to distort things in order to prove that you are right?”
What did he ignore?
I hope you can understand now, after I explained it again.“And if you sleep outside a sukkah the shiur of sleeping, which is even the smallest amount, you are mevatel the same mitzvas asei.”
Wondering, are you being mevatel a deorysa the first night by not sleeping in the sukkah if there is tzar of rain?
This is what I see from the shulchon aruchירדו גשמים הרי זה נכנס לתוך הבית מאימתי מותר לפנות משירדו לתוך הסוכה טפות שאם יפלו לתוך התבשיל יפסל אפילו תבשיל של פול: הגה ואפי’ אין תבשיל לפניו [סמ”ג והגהות אשירי] ומי שאינו בקי בזה השיעור ישער אם ירדו כל כך גשמים לבית אם היה יוצא יצא מסוכתו ג”כ [א”ז והגהת אשירי פרק הישן ומרדכי פ”ב מיימוני פ”ו ומהרי”ל]
וכל זה דוקא בשאר ימים או לילות של סוכות אבל לילה הראשונה צריך לאכול כזית בסוכה אף אם גשמים יורדין [טור ור”ן והרא”ש] ויקדש בסוכה [כדי] שיאמר זמן על הסוכה [ת”ה סימן צ”ה]:I only see you have a chiyuv to eat not sleep. Because davkeah non eating in the sukkah is being mevatel a deorysa not sleeping.
Let me know if I’m wrong in this example.
“Your rebbe’s justification does not”
His justification for himself or for the chassidim?
“Your rebbe’s justification does not, and it would have been better had he left it as a minhag without empty rationalizations.”
Thanks for giving the Rebbe advise. It’s a pity you weren’t there to give him advise 😉
Again my point is that by not sleeping in the sukkah, it’s not being mevatel a deorysa. Now regarding the chiyuv if you are going to sleep, the hetter is tzar.
The only question is what do we consider tzar, you don’t have to agree with the Rebbe if you don’t want to, it is a chidush.But as a chossid you can realize what the tzar is, as a chossid to a Rebbe when a Rebbe is having pain or tzar in something, the chossid also does or he is feeling bad why isn’t it bothering me, when something is bothering the Rebbe.
But you don’t have to agree. I’m not here to convince you.
@Neville ChaimBerlin
“The Rema says the exact opposite of what your claiming he does in siman 639. ”Your right, I gave the wrong example, I meant if it’s cold, ie. tzar
I hope you understand now.
I explained myself again in the above post.I’m confused, are you switching to our side on the sleeping in the Sukkah issue now? I’ve read your question several times, and it seems like you’re making exactly our point. By the way, non-Chabad Chassidim don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, just “fact-checking.”
Read again.
I’m asking a question, basically trying to prove that the rabbeim weren’t looking for hetterim because we see they wore makpid on everything else.Rso:
As I wrote a number of times, and as Syag wrote so clearly in a post just before yours, I have no problem with the minhag, and that is why I’d not fussed with what did or did not happen in Dzikov. I have a problem ONLY with the attempt at rationalization that simply does not hold water.
You didn’t answer the question.Neville ChaimBerlin
“What people are disputing is your habit of speaking of a heter as though it’s a chumrah to imply that those keeping the mitzvah are doing a bad thing.”It’s not a chumrah, it’s just reason/justificationfor the letter and an explanation why the rabbeim were makil in sleeping while they were extremely machmir in everything else
And don’t make a brocha in the sukkah if it’s raining, even if we still try to eat there
@Avram in MD and everyone else.
“The people from Dzhikov aren’t here on the CR trying to convert the nebach non-Dzhikovians. If they were, you bet they’d be asked about it.”
I’m not here to convince you my shitos, (you don’t have to agree) I’m here to stick up for Lubavitche and the Rebbe, when people are moitzi Shem rah, and call us all different types of names, without any real proof etc. I do intend to stick up against fake news. All I’m asking is that if you have a question about lubavitche, you can ask it, just don’t come to conclusions based on rumors.
I rest my caseChossid, as I wrote I am sick of re-explaining the same point over and over and I have committed (bli neder!) to ignore the non-answers and empty justifications to your rebbe’s sevoro about not sleeping in the sukkah. Everything I have written earlier on the topic still stands as far as I can tell, and I don’t believe anyone else in this forum who is not a lubavicher sees how you have answered my questions.
“And don’t make a brocha in the sukkah if it’s raining, even if we still try to eat there”
I believe that lubavichers do indeed make a brocha when eating in the sukkah even if it’s raining.
CORRECTION:
And we don’t make a brocha in the sukkah if it’s raining, even if we still try to eat thereI really don’t have time at the moment as I am out of town for Shabbos, but I “had” to post what a friend of mine just showed me. It’s in Sefer Chassidim siman 206. I’ll let other translate it if they are so inclined:
אם תראה שמתנבא אדם על משיח דע כי היו עוסקים 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 המלאכי’ או השדים באים ולומדים לו חשבונות וסודות לבושתו ולבושת המאמינים בדבריו:
Chossid – My problem isn’t with the tzaar, it’s with the svara that Chassidim can rely on their rebbe’s tzaar, because the chassidim are tied up with the neshama of the rebbe. (מכיון שחסידים מקושרים לרבותם)
So Chassid, noawadays, when the rebbe is no longer alive, are chassidim patur from the mitzvois because חסידים מקושרים לרבותם?
Username and SH have both avoided this part of the sicha as well.
Further more the Rebbe says that the reason why previous Gedolim did sleep in the sukkah was because they didn;t know toras chabad. Does he mean that abaya and rava didn’t know toras chabad, or does he mean that they knew it, it was forgotten, and no the rebbe is respreading it? If the former, it seems kind of chutzpahdig to say the Rebbe knew torah that Abay and Rava did not, and if the latter, why didn’t Abaye and Rava say why that they didn’t sleep in the sukkah? (and don’t answer that they in their greatness were able to, like username tried answering previously, because the Rebbe doesn’t say that. And he should.
There’s a practical difference between eating and sleeping in that tzar can make sleeping impossible so that you would accomplish nothing by lying in the Sukkah, but the same rain would only render eating uncomfortable.
People have pointed out that you have to eat a kazayis in the sukkah on the first night in rain, but you don’t have to sleep in it. This isn’t a proof that eating is more strict than sleeping. In fact, one could point out that a person only has to eat in the sukkah for achilas keva m’ikkar hadin, while for sleeping he has to do so even for a nap. I’m not making the inference that sleeping is more strict, but I’m am showing that you can make it sound like either one is more strict by pulling halachos out of context like that.
By the way, you probably aren’t being mevatel anything by not eating in the sukkah on the first night in rain either. It’s a machlokes rishonim, and I believe the mechaber doesn’t even mention it (I would have to look again to be sure). If it were for sure a mitzvah d’oraysa, we would say a brachah.
Can you source that the Petur of Tashvu KeEin Taduru only applies when you can’t eat/drink/sleep?
You are totally missing my point. I’m not denying that there’s a p’tur of mitztaer, I’m saying:
1) There’s something wrong with a form of supposed avodas Hashem which leads to unnecessary tza’ar to patter from a mitzvah
2) Most people not sleeping in the sukkah aren’t actually having this tza’ar.I don’t have a fully developed source which would specifically exclude psychological tza’ar from the din of mitztaer in sukkah, but neither do you have a source to include it.
Either way, that’s was never my argument, even if I grant it, my other arguments stand.
I found this sefer, where it says that the custom in Egypt was to be lenient about sleeping in a Sukkah, because the air is foul and there’s a concern that he may get cold.
But the air isn’t foul in Crown Heights, and nobody ever claimed that’s the heter!
Please stop bringing totally irrelevant “rayos” and defenses.
So we see from here, that not sleeping is not being mevatel a deorysa, the only thing that there is, is a chiyuv, if you don’t have a hetter.
Whatever, semantics for the point of this discussion, the point is it’s a violation of halacha, just like eating in the house.
Yeshivishrockstar:
“So Chassid, noawadays, when the rebbe is no longer alive, are chassidim patur from the mitzvois because חסידים מקושרים לרבותם?”Why does the hiskashrus change because he past away? The Rebbe said many times the hiskashrus to a Rebbe is through llearning his Torah and doing his hoirois,Come on, i thought you were brought up Lubavitche you should know what the Rebbe says regarding hiskashrus.
“Further more the Rebbe says that the reason why previous Gedolim did sleep in the sukkah was because they didn;t know toras chabad. Does he mean that abaya and rava didn’t know toras chabad, or does he mean that they knew it, it was forgotten, and no the rebbe is respreading it? If the former, it seems kind of chutzpahdig to say the Rebbe knew torah that Abay and Rava did not, and if the latter, why didn’t Abaye and Rava say why that they didn’t sleep in the sukkah? (and don’t answer that they in their greatness were able to, like username tried answering previously, because the Rebbe doesn’t say that. And he should.”
The Rebbe explains it in heorah 13 in the sicha, check it up.
Rso:
“Chossid, as I wrote I am sick of re-explaining the same point over and over and I have committed (bli neder!) to ignore the non-answers and empty justifications to your rebbe’s sevoro about not sleeping in the sukkah. Everything I have written earlier on the topic still stands as far as I can tell, and I don’t believe anyone else in this forum who is not a lubavicher sees how you have answered my questions.”
Same here.
And great shabbos. חזק חזק ונתחזקFirst night chiyuv to eat even in the rain but not sleep is due to the gezeira shava of Chamisha Asar to Pesach where it says Ba’erev Tochlu Matzos. Nothing to do with mitztaer and its relationship to the concept of teishvu k’ein taduru.
Chossid,
“All I’m asking is that if you have a question about lubavitche, you can ask it, just don’t come to conclusions based on rumors.
I rest my case”Everything I have posted in this thread has been directly about things written in this thread by Chabad (or claimed Chabad) posters.
Midwestener, as I said before, once you ate a kezayis on the first day you were mekayim the mitzvah, so the gezareh shaveh does not apply any more and the halochas of teshvu kaen toduru and metzaer apply and you are exempt to sleep in the cold. See SA O’CH 639,3.
I just tried posting but I’m not sure it went through, so I’ll repost it in short.
CS, your post on p32 doesn’t answer the question, and it just trying to confuse us with words. It seems it was successful in convincing you, but that’s about it.
Either the buttons have not been polished, in which case your rebbe was wrong, or they have been polished but Hashem has changed the rules.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
Interesting how no one has commented on the piece from Sefer Chassidim I posted.
CS, interesting what you write about Bnei Noach. I just don’t believe how that will bring Mashiach closer.
CS: “Rabbi Heller the mohel has helped a bunch of these, and when they asked him what he wanted in return he said they should start modest clothing fashions”
I find this VERY interesting! I don’t know whether Rabbi Heller is a lubavicher or not, but he chose something which is NOT one of the 7 mitzvos. Rather his intention seems to be to have more people dress in a tznius manner so that we Yidden will have it easier when coming in contact with them.
That I can see the point of. (Sorry for the lousy grammar.)
I don’t know how I missed this one, but B”H a friend pointed out my lapse to me.
On page 28 username wrote: “People who really grasped the holiness of a Sukkah – and these were Tzaddikim who’s sleep was a different sleep (for example, Shivchei Ari says how the Arizal would learn deep Sisrei Torah while he slept), so for them there was no problem sleeping in a Sukkah, so they had the Chiyuv DeOraisa to sleep in a Sukkah.”
Does this mean you’re implying that the Ari was on a higher madreiga than the Lubavicher rebbe? Fine with me, but if so I have one more question. If Mashiach can be from someone who was already niftar, shouldn’t it then be the Ari?
Rso,
To play Lubavitcher’s advocate
As cs pointed out in the past it matters generation wise
I don’t think Dovid hamelech was better than his brothers
CS, thanks! I hope you weren’t insulted.
RSo, if you read my earlier points, you see I am making this exact point. While it’s not farfetched (especially for a lubavithcer) for someone to believe the Rebbe was the greatest in his generation, to say he was the greatest of all the generations is insane, and usually borders on kefira (because the answers are generally like “well the Rebbe was the only one with atzmus” etc.)
CS – Please answer my posts when you can.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.